Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08169/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08169-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan 

Society, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Thomas J Betlach, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-08169-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Defendant Thomas J. Betlach’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13, Mot.), to 

which Plaintiff Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society filed an “Objection” (Doc. 

24, MTD Objection), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. 23, 

MTA), to which Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 27, MTA Resp.), and in support of 

which Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 28, MTA Reply). 

 At the outset, the Court must note Plaintiff’s failure to passably respond to 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. While nothing precludes Plaintiff from timely amending 

its Complaint after Defendant has moved to dismiss, it does not absolve Plaintiff from 

filing a responsive memorandum opposing dismissal. While Plaintiff filed an “objection” 

after seeking leave to amend averring only that its Proposed Amended Complaint would 

mollify any deficiencies alleged in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, this is insufficient. 

Plaintiff did not defend the only properly filed Complaint and the Court is warranted in 

granting Defendant’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on these grounds alone. 

See Watts v. Kernan, 336 Fed. App’x 747 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 3:16-cv-08169-JJT Document 29 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Without the benefit of a comprehensive responsive memorandum from Plaintiff 

contesting Defendant’s arguments, the Court is largely unable to analyze Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss against Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint. Further, in arguing 

for and against leave to amend, it appears the parties are talking past each other. For 

example, Plaintiff continually states that Defendant is misconstruing the case as one 

regarding eligibility coverage, rather than reimbursement of pre-eligibility medical 

expenses, but what consequences such distinction may have is not properly addressed. 

(See MTA Reply at 6, MTD Objection at 3.) If the parties cannot agree on what the 

gravamen of the matter is, they cannot properly argue for or against its dismissal—and it 

greatly hinders the Court’s ability to determine the same issues. If the parties indeed 

disagree as to the claims, as well as what law and regulation apply to those claims, future 

briefing should squarely address each. Similarly, the parties appear to disagree as to 

whether the Complaint is meant to be brought as a putative class action or on behalf of 

unknown parties—despite not being styled as such—and, if so, who would comprise that 

class. (MTA Resp. at 2; MTA Reply at 4.) Defendant also makes sweeping contentions in 

favor of dismissal under Eleventh Amendment Immunity and 28 U.S.C. § 1983 with little 

discussion or case law, and Plaintiff fails to respond to much of the same. (See MTD at 8; 

MTA Resp. at 2, 9; MTA Reply at 3-4.) 

 In short, the current briefs do not appear to directly address the same subjects and, 

if they do, they are nonetheless unclear, making resolution impractical or impossible. 

This is partially due to the fact that the parties’ arguments regarding dismissal are 

shoehorned into their briefing on leave for amendment and Plaintiff’s failure to 

adequately respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. But it is also partially due to a 

failure to adequately meet and confer. In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant stated that the 

“parties exchanged views on what [Defendant] perceived to be defects in the Complaint 

but they were unable to resolve their differences.” (MTD at 3.) After Defendant filed his 

Motion to Dismiss, it appears at least two additional attorneys sought and were granted 

Pro Hac Vice admission. (Docs. 16, 20.) Though no counsel has withdrawn, Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-08169-JJT Document 29 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

affirms that a change in counsel occurred which delayed the filing of its Proposed 

Amended Complaint. (MTA at 3.) Regardless, new counsel appears to represent Plaintiff 

to some degree. 

 In an effort to streamline the current litigation and provide clarity—both to the 

parties and the Court—the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, with leave to 

amend, and Order the parties to meet and confer before the filing of an Amended 

Complaint. At the very least, with the benefit of conferring, Plaintiff should decide what 

causes of action are being pled and on behalf of whom relief is sought. After having done 

so, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which remedies any 

deficiencies that may be cured by amendment and provides clarity to its causes of action 

and the law and regulations that apply to its claims. Of course, if issues remain, 

Defendant may then move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and, if Plaintiff 

chooses to respond, Plaintiff shall file a proper responsive pleading. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

13), but granting Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct 

Complaint (Doc. 23) as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant shall meet 

and confer regarding the remaining alleged defects in Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended 

Complaint, and Plaintiff shall file a certificate of conferral prior to or contemporaneously 

with its Amended Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no 

later than 30 days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely file, the case will 

be dismissed without further notice of the Court. 

 Dated this 1st day of February, 2017. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-08169-JJT Document 29 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 3