TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY

D. New Jersey

TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY

DecidedJuly 17, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-04268

StatusUnknown

This text of TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY (TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, (D.N.J. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: LYNN TURNER, : : Civil Action No. 23-4268 (JXN) (AME) Plaintiff, : : v. : MEMORANDUM OPINION : HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD : & OF NEW JERSEY, agent of XYZ : CORPORATION, agent of JOHN OR : ORDER JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 10 : : Defendant.

NEALS, District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey’s (“Horizon’s”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Lynn Turner’s (“Plaintiff’s”) complaint (ECF No. 1) (the “Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 12), and Defendant replied. (ECF No. 16). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and decides this matter without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice. 1. Based on the face of the Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Perry v. Gonzales, 472 F. Supp. 2d 623, 626 (D.N.J. 2007) (“[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time.”) (citations omitted); Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction. . . .”) (citation omitted). 2. In addition to not alleging venue, Plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Cv. P. 8(a)(1) (Complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. . . .”). Indeed, despite selecting diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 1-1 (the “Cover Sheet”)), Plaintiff alleges the parties reside in New Jersey.

(Compl. at 1-2). See 28 US.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, while the Cover Sheet does not assert federal question jurisdiction, the Court considers whether federal question jurisdiction applies. 3. Plaintiff alleges New Jersey state law claims. (Compl. at 3-12). In support of Counts One and Three, the Complaint alleges Defendant “deprived” her of “her constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Compl. at 5, 8). However, the Complaint does not allege a constitutional or civil rights claim. 4. The Court considers whether federal question jurisdiction is apparent from the Complaint. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974) (Federal question jurisdiction “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.”) (internal quotation marks omitted and citations omitted). Plaintiff “bears the burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Omar v. Mueller, 501 F. Supp. 2d 636, 638 (D.N.J. 2007) (citations omitted). 5. Here, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not alleged a claim under § 1983 (ECF No. 9- 1 at 31 n.8), to which Plaintiff provides no response.1 (See, gen., ECF No. 12). Plaintiff also alleges no facts in support of her bald assertion that Defendant, a private employer, violated her constitutional rights of “[f]reedom from deprivation of liberty[;]” “[f]reedom from an invasion of

1 Due to Plaintiff’s lack of response, the Court could dismiss the § 1983 claim, if any. Cabrera v. Nazor, No. 23- 2745, 2024 WL 310523, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2024) (citation omitted), aff’d as modified, 813 F.App’x 780 (3d Cir. 2020)); Depalma v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., No. 20-3210, 2020 WL 6689800, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2020). personal security; and “[e]qual protection of the laws.” (Compl. at 4-5). Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff has 30 days to file a motion for leave to amend, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, dismissal may be converted to with prejudice. s/ Julien Xavier Neals JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: LYNN TURNER, : : Civil Action No. 23-4268 (JXN) (AME) Plaintiff, : : v. : MEMORANDUM OPINION : HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD : & OF NEW JERSEY, agent of XYZ : CORPORATION, agent of JOHN OR : ORDER JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 10 : : Defendant.

NEALS, District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey’s (“Horizon’s”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Lynn Turner’s (“Plaintiff’s”) complaint (ECF No. 1) (the “Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 12), and Defendant replied. (ECF No. 16). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and decides this matter without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice. 1. Based on the face of the Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Perry v. Gonzales, 472 F. Supp. 2d 623, 626 (D.N.J. 2007) (“[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time.”) (citations omitted); Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction. . . .”) (citation omitted). 2. In addition to not alleging venue, Plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Cv. P. 8(a)(1) (Complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. . . .”). Indeed, despite selecting diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 1-1 (the “Cover Sheet”)), Plaintiff alleges the parties reside in New Jersey.

(Compl. at 1-2). See 28 US.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, while the Cover Sheet does not assert federal question jurisdiction, the Court considers whether federal question jurisdiction applies. 3. Plaintiff alleges New Jersey state law claims. (Compl. at 3-12). In support of Counts One and Three, the Complaint alleges Defendant “deprived” her of “her constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Compl. at 5, 8). However, the Complaint does not allege a constitutional or civil rights claim. 4. The Court considers whether federal question jurisdiction is apparent from the Complaint. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974) (Federal question jurisdiction “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.”) (internal quotation marks omitted and citations omitted). Plaintiff “bears the burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Omar v. Mueller, 501 F. Supp. 2d 636, 638 (D.N.J. 2007) (citations omitted). 5. Here, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not alleged a claim under § 1983 (ECF No. 9- 1 at 31 n.8), to which Plaintiff provides no response.1 (See, gen., ECF No. 12). Plaintiff also alleges no facts in support of her bald assertion that Defendant, a private employer, violated her constitutional rights of “[f]reedom from deprivation of liberty[;]” “[f]reedom from an invasion of

1 Due to Plaintiff’s lack of response, the Court could dismiss the § 1983 claim, if any. Cabrera v. Nazor, No. 23- 2745, 2024 WL 310523, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2024) (citation omitted), aff’d as modified, 813 F.App’x 780 (3d Cir. 2020)); Depalma v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., No. 20-3210, 2020 WL 6689800, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2020). personal security; and “[e]qual protection of the laws.” (Compl. at 4-5). Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff has 30 days to file a motion for leave to amend, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, dismissal may be converted to with prejudice. s/ Julien Xavier Neals JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

TURNER v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-horizon-blue-cross-blue-shield-of-new-jersey-njd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack