Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190329_0001197.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 13:48:49
Document Index: 606359888

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1961', '§ 1001', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1104']

FindACase™ | Peters v. Aetna Inc.
Peters v. Aetna Inc.
SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 144].
On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters filed this putative class action against the Defendants Aetna, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Aetna”), and OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc. (“Optum”), asserting claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. (“RICO”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). [Doc. 1]. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna engaged in a fraudulent scheme with Optum and other subcontractors, whereby insureds were caused to pay the subcontractors' administrative fees because the Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical expenses. The Plaintiff alleged that these misrepresentations allowed Aetna to illegally (i) obtain payment of the subcontractors' administrative fees directly from insureds when the insureds' deductibles have not been reached; (ii) use insureds' health spending accounts to pay for these fees; (iii) inflate insureds' co-insurance obligations using administrative fees; (iv) artificially reduce the amount of available coverage for medical services when such coverage is subject to an annual cap; and (v) obtain payment of the administrative fees directly from employers when an insured's deductible has been exhausted or is inapplicable. [Id.].
The Plaintiff asserted two claims based on RICO violations. In Count I of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna and its subcontractors, including Optum, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by engaging in acts of mail and wire fraud in furtherance of a common purpose to collect administrative fees from Aetna insureds and plans by improperly characterizing them as payment for covered medical expenses, and as such, constitute an associated-in-fact “enterprise” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Alternatively, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna has conducted multiple bilateral association-in-fact RICO enterprises with each of its subcontractors. In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The Plaintiff also asserted two claims under ERISA, alleging that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as plan administrators, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) (Count III) and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (Count IV).
Aetna and Optum moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims and that her Complaint otherwise failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. [Docs. 37, 39]. On August 31, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions. [Doc. 54]. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had standing to assert claims regarding Aetna's actions with respect to Optum but that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims with respect to Aetna's interactions with other subcontractors. [Id. at 18-20]. Further, the Court granted the Defendants' motions with respect to the Plaintiff's RICO claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The Court denied the Defendants' motions with respect to the Plaintiff's ERISA claims. [Id. at 34].
The Plaintiff now moves this Court to grant class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).
The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, arguing that: (1) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement; (2) the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate through classwide evidence that all proposed class members suffered injury; (3) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements; (4) the Plaintiff does not specify what “equitable” relief the proposed members seek or how they would prove their entitlement to it; (5) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(1); (6) the proposed classes fail Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements because individualized inquiries would overwhelm any “class” proceeding; and (7) because the proposed classes are overrun with individualized issues of liability, causation, and injury, there is no basis for issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4). [Doc. 162].
The Court held a hearing on the motion for class certification on March I, 2019. Having been fully briefed and argued, this matter is ripe for disposition.
“The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify a departure from that usual rule, “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Id. at 348-49 (quoting East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977)). Thus, in seeking the certification of a class action, a putative class representative must demonstrate as a threshold matter that she is a member of the proposed class and that the other class members are “readily identifiable” or “ascertainable.” EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2014) (“A class cannot be certified unless a court can readily identify the class members in reference to objective criteria.”).
Once this threshold determination has been made, the Court must then determine whether the readily identifiable class should be certified. Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the four prerequisites that an action must satisfy in order to be certified as a class action: (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”); (2) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims and defenses of the class as a whole (“typicality”); and (4) the representative party must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (“adequacy of representation”). Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). “Rule 23(a) ensures that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to litigate. The Rule's four requirements - numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation - effectively limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff's claims.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a), “the class action must fall within one of the three categories enumerated in Rule 23(b).” Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 423 (4th Cir. 2003). Here, the Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(1) and (3), which provide, respectively, as follows:
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or ...