IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., )

an Ohio corporation, individually and as )

the representative of a class of similarly- )

situated persons, ) No. 12-cv-03233

)

Plaintiff, ) Hon. Judge John F. Grady

)

v. ) Hon. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

)

ALLSCRIPTS-MISY’S HEALTHCARE )

SOLUTIONS, INC., ALLSCRIPTS, LLC ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.’S COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS 

and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE )

SOLUTIONS, INC. )

THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(B)(1), TO DENY MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“Allscripts”), respectfully requests this Honorable Court to 

Dismiss the Class Action Complaint of Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (“PHI” or “Plaintiff”) pursuant to 

FRCP 12(b)(1) with prejudice, to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and, in the Alternative, 

to Stay All Proceedings.

1. On May 1, 2012, PHI filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division, alleging that Allscripts sent it unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

FRCP 12(b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

2. PHI’s Complaint does not allege that it actually received any faxes from Allscripts. 

Instead, the Complaint merely alleges that Allscripts sent unsolicited faxes to PHI without PHI’s 

invitation or permission. 

3. By failing to allege that PHI actually received any unsolicited faxes from Allscripts, PHI 

cannot establish that it sustained an “injury-in-fact” sufficient to give it standing to sue under Article III 

Case: 1:12-cv-03233 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:87
2

of the Constitution. When a plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing, the federal courts lack

subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s cause of action, as no actual controversy exists. 

Therefore, because PHI lacks standing to bring this action in federal court, PHI’s Complaint should be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1). 

4. Local Rule 5.3(b) requires that every motion be accompanied by a notice of presentment 

specifying the date and time on which, and judge before whom, the motion is to be presented. The Rule 

further provides that the date of presentment shall not be more than 14 days following the date on which 

the motion is delivered to the Court.

MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

5. Local Rule 78.2 provides this Court with the ability to deny motions that do not comply 

with LR 5.3(b)’s 14-day presentment requirement. To this day, PHI has not filed a notice of 

presentment with this court specifying the date and time on which, and the judge before whom, its 

Motion for Class Certification is to be presented. Due to PHI’s clear violation of LR 5.3(b), Allscripts

respectfully moves this Court to deny PHI’s Motion for Class Certification pursuant to LR 78.2.

6. On May 22, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument 

in Holtzman v. Turza (7th Cir. Nos. 11-3188 & 11-3746) regarding the novel question of whether 

“actual receipt” of a fax is a necessary requirement for establishing Article III standing for TCPA 

plaintiffs. The issue was extensively briefed, and the petitioner has encouraged the Seventh Circuit 

panel to address it and provide much-needed guidance on the interplay between the TCPA’s statutory 

standing requirements and Article III’s constitutional requirements. 

MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

7. A decision by the Seventh Circuit in Holtzman is expected before the end of this year. In 

order to avoid wasting this Court’s (and the parties’) resources, and given that the Seventh Circuit’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-03233 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:88
3

decision will be controlling on this Court, Allscripts respectfully moves, in the alternative, for a stay of

all proceedings in this matter until the Seventh Circuit renders a final decision in Holtzman. 

* * * * *

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum of Law, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court 

to award the following relief: 

(i) Dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1);

(ii) Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Local Rule 78.2 due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable presentment requirement under Local 

Rule 5.3(b);

(iii) Alternatively, staying all proceedings; and

(iv) Any additional relief deemed equitable and just.

DATED: June 12, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

SEDGWICK LLP

By: 

One of Its Attorneys

/s/ David S. Almeida

David S. Almeida ARDC #6285557

David.Almeida@sedgwicklaw.com

David M. Poell ARDC #6302765

David.Poell@sedgwicklaw.com

SEDGWICK LLP

One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4200

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Telephone: (312) 641-9050

Facsimile: (312) 641-9530

Counsel for Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03233 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:89