2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:19-cv-02074-ART-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 WELL PATH, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff Michael Rodriguez sued several Defendants, including Las Vegas 11 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), WellPath LLC, Richard Forbus, Fred 12 Meyer, Naphcare, Harry Duran (deceased), Kendra Meyer, Lee Meisner, Earl 13 Salviejo, Larry Williamson, Hugh Rosett, and Michael Kane for inadequate 14 medical care in the Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 35.) In 2024, 15 WellPath filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy. (ECF No. 154.) The 16 bankruptcy court confirmed the chapter 11 plan on May 1, 2025, discharging all 17 claims and causes of action against WellPath. (ECF No. 165.) 18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 19 Defendant WellPath LLC. (ECF No. 166.) As detailed below, the Court dismisses 20 WellPath with prejudice, but grants Rodriguez leave to file an amended complaint 21 adding the Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 As set forth in Rodriguez’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), this case, 24 commenced in 2019, concerns the medical treatment Rodriguez received while 25 detained at Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). (ECF No. 35.) During the 26 period that Rodriguez was incarcerated at CCDC, he experienced ongoing medical 27 issues and severe pain related to a hydrocele. (Id.) Rodriguez alleges that 28 Defendants exhibited deliberative indifference to his medical needs related to the 1 hydrocele, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 2 Constitution. (Id.) 3 On November 11, 2024, WellPath Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated 4 companies (“Debtors”) each filed voluntary petitions in the United States 5 Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under chapter 11 of the 6 United States Bankruptcy Code. (ECF No. 154.) WellPath gave notice of the 7 Bankruptcy petition on November 19, 2024, effectively staying this action. (Id.) 8 On June 4, 2025, WellPath informed this Court that the bankruptcy court had 9 entered a Confirmation Order confirming WellPath’s First Amended Joint Chapter 10 11 Plan of Reorganization (“Plan”), and that the automatic bankruptcy stay had 11 been lifted. (ECF No. 165.) 12 The Plan and General Form of Order Regarding Lift Stay Motions1 (“Stay 13 Order”) directs that “all Claims and Causes of Action of any nature” that arose 14 before the petition date “against the Debtors are discharged.” (ECF No. 166-2 at 15 3); In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 4, 2025) 16 Dkt. No. 2907, p. 2. The Stay Order further provides that “[h]olders of personal 17 injury tort and wrongful death Claims against the Debtors are subject to the Trust 18 Distribution Procedures,” but may also seek “determinations of the Debtors’ 19 liability by the appropriate civil court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) with the 20 Liquidating Trust as a nominal party.” (Id.) Those parties can include the 21 Liquidating Trust as a nominal party “to recover against available third-party 22 proceeds” or to “establish or liquidate the amount of their claim for distribution 23 under the Plan from the Liquidating Trust.” (Id.) 24 Outside of these measures, however, holders of such claims “may not seek 25 satisfaction of, and are permanently enjoined from seeking payment of, any 26 1See Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F. 3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (court may take 27 judicial notice of proceedings in other courts, within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue). 28 1 judgment, award, settlement, claim, distribution, indemnification right, or any 2 other payment amount resulting from their lawsuit from, or in connection with, 3 the Debtor, the Debtors’ estates, or the Post-Restructuring Debtors.” (Id.) To 4 proceed with claims against non-debtor defendants, including employees of 5 WellPath, incarcerated individuals with personal injury or wrongful death claims 6 had until July 31, 2025, to opt-out of the Plan’s Third-Party Releases. (ECF No. 7 166-1 at ¶ 43.) 8 On June 25, 2025, WellPath filed a motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s claims 9 against it and to dismiss WellPath from this case. (ECF No. 166.) Rodriguez 10 responded to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 168), and WellPath replied. (ECF 11 No. 171.) 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 A. Legal Standard 14 A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must 16 contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 17 entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 18 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it 19 demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 20 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 22 To sufficiently allege a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 23 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 24 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the 25 court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. However, “bare 26 assertions” in a complaint amounting “to nothing more than a ‘formulaic 27 recitation of the elements’” of a claim are not entitled to an assumption of truth. 28 Id. at 680–81 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The court discounts these 1 allegations because “they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion—even if 2 that conclusion is cast in the form of a factual allegation.” Moss v. U.S. Secret 3 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a 4 motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable 5 inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the 6 plaintiff to relief.” Id. 7 B. WellPath as Nominal Defendant 8 In its Motion to Dismiss, Wellpath argues that, pursuant to the Plan, all 9 claims and causes of action against the Debtors must be discharged, and 10 Rodriguez must be permanently enjoined from pursuing claims against the 11 Debtors. (ECF No. 166 at 2-3.) Rodriguez contends that as a holder of personal 12 injury tort and/or wrongful death claims, he can seek to liquidate his claims 13 against Wellpath, itself, as a nominal defendant. (ECF No. 168 at 2–3.) 14 A bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan that governs 15 the distribution of the debtor’s assets “‘discharges the debtor from any debt that 16 arose before the date of such confirmation,’ except as provided in the plan, the 17 confirmation order, or the code.” Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 18 214 (2024) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A)). Such a discharge “not only releases 19 or ‘void[s] any past or future judgments on the’ discharged debt; it also ‘operates 20 as an injunction . . . prohibit[ing] creditors from attempting to collect or recover 21 the debt.’” Id. at 215 (citing Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 22 440, 447 (2004)). However, typically, the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does 23 not affect the liability of any entity on, or the property of any other entity, for such 24 a debt.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(e).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:19-cv-02074-ART-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 WELL PATH, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff Michael Rodriguez sued several Defendants, including Las Vegas 11 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), WellPath LLC, Richard Forbus, Fred 12 Meyer, Naphcare, Harry Duran (deceased), Kendra Meyer, Lee Meisner, Earl 13 Salviejo, Larry Williamson, Hugh Rosett, and Michael Kane for inadequate 14 medical care in the Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 35.) In 2024, 15 WellPath filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy. (ECF No. 154.) The 16 bankruptcy court confirmed the chapter 11 plan on May 1, 2025, discharging all 17 claims and causes of action against WellPath. (ECF No. 165.) 18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 19 Defendant WellPath LLC. (ECF No. 166.) As detailed below, the Court dismisses 20 WellPath with prejudice, but grants Rodriguez leave to file an amended complaint 21 adding the Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 As set forth in Rodriguez’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), this case, 24 commenced in 2019, concerns the medical treatment Rodriguez received while 25 detained at Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). (ECF No. 35.) During the 26 period that Rodriguez was incarcerated at CCDC, he experienced ongoing medical 27 issues and severe pain related to a hydrocele. (Id.) Rodriguez alleges that 28 Defendants exhibited deliberative indifference to his medical needs related to the 1 hydrocele, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 2 Constitution. (Id.) 3 On November 11, 2024, WellPath Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated 4 companies (“Debtors”) each filed voluntary petitions in the United States 5 Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under chapter 11 of the 6 United States Bankruptcy Code. (ECF No. 154.) WellPath gave notice of the 7 Bankruptcy petition on November 19, 2024, effectively staying this action. (Id.) 8 On June 4, 2025, WellPath informed this Court that the bankruptcy court had 9 entered a Confirmation Order confirming WellPath’s First Amended Joint Chapter 10 11 Plan of Reorganization (“Plan”), and that the automatic bankruptcy stay had 11 been lifted. (ECF No. 165.) 12 The Plan and General Form of Order Regarding Lift Stay Motions1 (“Stay 13 Order”) directs that “all Claims and Causes of Action of any nature” that arose 14 before the petition date “against the Debtors are discharged.” (ECF No. 166-2 at 15 3); In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 4, 2025) 16 Dkt. No. 2907, p. 2. The Stay Order further provides that “[h]olders of personal 17 injury tort and wrongful death Claims against the Debtors are subject to the Trust 18 Distribution Procedures,” but may also seek “determinations of the Debtors’ 19 liability by the appropriate civil court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) with the 20 Liquidating Trust as a nominal party.” (Id.) Those parties can include the 21 Liquidating Trust as a nominal party “to recover against available third-party 22 proceeds” or to “establish or liquidate the amount of their claim for distribution 23 under the Plan from the Liquidating Trust.” (Id.) 24 Outside of these measures, however, holders of such claims “may not seek 25 satisfaction of, and are permanently enjoined from seeking payment of, any 26 1See Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F. 3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (court may take 27 judicial notice of proceedings in other courts, within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue). 28 1 judgment, award, settlement, claim, distribution, indemnification right, or any 2 other payment amount resulting from their lawsuit from, or in connection with, 3 the Debtor, the Debtors’ estates, or the Post-Restructuring Debtors.” (Id.) To 4 proceed with claims against non-debtor defendants, including employees of 5 WellPath, incarcerated individuals with personal injury or wrongful death claims 6 had until July 31, 2025, to opt-out of the Plan’s Third-Party Releases. (ECF No. 7 166-1 at ¶ 43.) 8 On June 25, 2025, WellPath filed a motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s claims 9 against it and to dismiss WellPath from this case. (ECF No. 166.) Rodriguez 10 responded to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 168), and WellPath replied. (ECF 11 No. 171.) 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 A. Legal Standard 14 A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must 16 contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 17 entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 18 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it 19 demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 20 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 22 To sufficiently allege a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 23 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 24 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the 25 court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. However, “bare 26 assertions” in a complaint amounting “to nothing more than a ‘formulaic 27 recitation of the elements’” of a claim are not entitled to an assumption of truth. 28 Id. at 680–81 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The court discounts these 1 allegations because “they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion—even if 2 that conclusion is cast in the form of a factual allegation.” Moss v. U.S. Secret 3 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a 4 motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable 5 inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the 6 plaintiff to relief.” Id. 7 B. WellPath as Nominal Defendant 8 In its Motion to Dismiss, Wellpath argues that, pursuant to the Plan, all 9 claims and causes of action against the Debtors must be discharged, and 10 Rodriguez must be permanently enjoined from pursuing claims against the 11 Debtors. (ECF No. 166 at 2-3.) Rodriguez contends that as a holder of personal 12 injury tort and/or wrongful death claims, he can seek to liquidate his claims 13 against Wellpath, itself, as a nominal defendant. (ECF No. 168 at 2–3.) 14 A bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan that governs 15 the distribution of the debtor’s assets “‘discharges the debtor from any debt that 16 arose before the date of such confirmation,’ except as provided in the plan, the 17 confirmation order, or the code.” Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 18 214 (2024) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A)). Such a discharge “not only releases 19 or ‘void[s] any past or future judgments on the’ discharged debt; it also ‘operates 20 as an injunction . . . prohibit[ing] creditors from attempting to collect or recover 21 the debt.’” Id. at 215 (citing Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 22 440, 447 (2004)). However, typically, the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does 23 not affect the liability of any entity on, or the property of any other entity, for such 24 a debt.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(e). 25 Pursuant to the Plan and Stay Order, continuation of this action against 26 Wellpath itself is foreclosed. Moreover, the bankruptcy court has indicated that 27 the Liquidating Trust, not Wellpath, is the correct nominal party for holders of 28 personal injury and/or wrongful death claims to name in civil court cases 1 involving Wellpath. See In re Wellpath SF Holdco, LLC, No. 24-90566 (Bankr. S.D. 2 Tex. October 21, 2025), Dkt. Nos. 844, 845; In re Wellpath SF Holdco, LLC, No. 3 24-90566 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. November 25, 2025), Dkt. No. 1022 at 00:27:00- 4 1:10:00. As a result, it is not appropriate to maintain Wellpath in this case, even 5 as a nominal defendant. The Court thus dismisses Wellpath from this case with 6 prejudice. 7 C. Third Party Release 8 Wellpath also argues that parties who did not affirmatively opt out of the 9 Third-Party Release are “permanently enjoined from taking any action, including 10 the commencement, further prosecution of, or collection efforts, against the 11 Debtors or Non-Debtor Defendants.” (ECF No. 166 at 4.) At the time Rodriguez 12 filed his response to Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss, he was still able to timely 13 exercise his opt-out rights to preserve claims against Non-Debtor Defendants. 14 (ECF No. 168 at 3.) 15 If Rodriguez timely opted-out of the Third-Party Release, he may still 16 pursue his claims against the Non-Debtor Defendants. Because no party has 17 indicated whether Rodriguez successfully opted-out, the Court orders the parties 18 to file a joint status report updating the Court on the status of Rodriguez’s Third- 19 Party Release opt-out by Wednesday, January 14, 2026. 20 D. Leave to Amend 21 In his response to Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss, Rodriguez argues that he 22 should be allowed to proceed against the Liquidating Trust as a nominal party. 23 (ECF No. 168 at 2-3.) While Wellpath contends that it should not be kept in this 24 matter as a nominal defendant, it does not argue against including the 25 Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant. (ECF No. 171 at 3–4.) 26 In accordance with Rule 15(a), the court should freely give leave to amend 27 “when justice so requires,” and in the absence of a reason such as “undue 28 delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 1 || cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 2 || opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the 3 || amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 4 As stated above, the bankruptcy court’s order authorizes “holders of 5 || personal injury tort and wrongful death claims against” Wellpath to “seek 6 || determinations of [Wellpath’s] liability by the appropriate civil court... with the 7 || Liquidating Trust as a nominal party (a) to the extent such inclusion is 8 || necessary to recover against available third-party insurance proceeds or an 9 || unreleased Non-Debtor Defendant, or (b) to establish or liquidate the amount of 10 || their claim under the Plan from the Liquidating Trust.” (ECF No. 166-2.) Thus, 11 || because the Stay Order specifically allows Rodriguez to name the Liquidating 12 || Trust as a nominal defendant, and Wellpath has not demonstrated that such an 13 |} amendment would be futile, the Court grants Rodriguez leave to amend to 14 || include the Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant in this case. 15 || ITI. Conclusion 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Wellpath LLC is dismissed with 17 || prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file a joint status report 19 || informing the Court whether Rodriguez timely opted out of the Third-Party 20 || Release, and the applicability of such a release, by Wednesday, January 14, 2026. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rodriguez is granted leave to amend his 22 || complaint to include the Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant. 23 24 DATED THIS 10th day of December 2025. 25 oun x Pee Vaated
27 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28