1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C.,

et al.

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED HEALTH GROUP, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil No. 11-425-ES-SCM

OPINION AND ORDER ON 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT

[D.E. 117]

This matter having come before the Court by way of 

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

[Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 117]. Defendants have advised the Court 

by way of written submission dated June 26, 2012, [D.E. 125] 

that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.

1

 

1 In their June 26, 2012 submission to the Court Defendants do 

not oppose the instant motion. However, Defendants assert that 

plaintiff Judson G. Sprandel, II, D.C (“Dr. Sprandel”) should 

not be allowed to participate in the instant action as a 

plaintiff because his claims have been previously dismissed by 

the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause. Defendants further 

submit that Dr. Sprandel should not be allowed to participate as 

a plaintiff unless and until he successfully petitions this 

Court for reconsideration of its Order compelling him to 

arbitrate. [See D.E. 125, Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs 

Motion to File Amended Complaint “Df. Rsp.”)]. Plaintiffs

counter argue that Dr. Sprandel was compelled to arbitration 

based on unclear and/or erroneous averments in the original 

Complaint that have been clarified in the Second Amended 

Complaint. [See D.E. 129, Plaintiffs’’ Reply (“Pl. Reply”)]. 

Therefore, according Plaintiffs, Dr. Sprandel should be allowed 

Case 2:11-cv-00425-ES-SCM Document 205 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8993
2

The motion is therefore uncontested. The Court having 

considered Plaintiffs’ submission, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15, and the case law governing motions to amend the 

pleadings; and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 28th day of March, 2013

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion [D.E. No. 117] for leave to 

file a Second Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs shall 

file and serve the amended pleading within the time provided by 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

s/ Steven C. Mannion 

HONORABLE STEVEN C. MANNION

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 3/28/2013 4:19:18 PM

Date: March 28, 2013

 

to proceed as a plaintiff under the Second Amended Complaint.

Id. It is the view of the Court that the instant Motion should 

be granted with Dr. Sprandel being allowed to proceed as a 

plaintiff. The question of whether Dr. Sprandel was or was not, 

during the relevant time period an in-network provider (making 

him subject to arbitration) or an out-of-network provider is a 

question of fact that the parties may going forward through

Motions, if necessary. For the purposes of this Motion, the 

Court is satisfied, based on Plaintiffs’ averments as set forth 

in their moving brief [see D.E. 117-1, Plaintiffs’ Moving Brief 

(“Pl. Br.”), p. 3] that Dr. Sprandel’s status was made clear via 

documents produced by Defendant United Health Group during 

discovery thereby justifying granting leave to amend pursuant to 

Rule 15 (the Court also notes that Defendants did not argue 

otherwise in their response). In addition, pending before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [D.E. 187]. 

Therefore, because the Court and the parties all have an 

interest in the instant matter proceeding forward on the merits, 

the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and allow the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint to be filed as captioned.

Case 2:11-cv-00425-ES-SCM Document 205 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8994