Anchor Health Sys. v. Radowski

• Decision Date: 22 April 2020
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-65-TLS
• Parties: ANCHOR HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DENNIS RADOWSKI, THE CITY OF HAMMOND, PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., and UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION & EMPLOYERS CALUMET REGION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

ANCHOR HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DENNIS RADOWSKI, THE CITY OF HAMMOND, PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., and UNITEDFOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION & EMPLOYERS CALUMET REGION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.

CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-65-TLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

April 22, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 91, 94], filed on March 25, 2019. The fundamental issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff, Anchor Health Systems, Inc., is entitled to reimbursement under various health insurance plans for the medical services it provided to Grace Radowski. The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Calumet Region Insurance Fund ("Calfund") argues that the services were custodial and therefore excluded from coverage. The City of Hammond and Professional Claims Management, Inc. ("City Defendants") argue that the City's health insurance plan is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b). See UFCW Union & Employers Calumet Region Insurance Fund's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response [ECF No. 111]. The Court agrees with these arguments. As such, Calfund's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 94] and Motion to Strike [ECF No. 111] are GRANTED. The City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 91] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the City of Hammond, Professional Claims Management, and Dennis Radowski.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE 56(c) AND LOCAL RULE 56-1(b)

The Defendants argue that their facts should be deemed admitted because the Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b). Calfund also argues that the Plaintiff's factual assertions should be stricken because the Plaintiff's Response fails to comply with Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b). The Court agrees.

"[D]istrict courts are not obliged in [an] adversary system to scour the record looking for factual disputes and may adopt local rules reasonably designed to streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions." Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Herman v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 1989); Bell, Boyd & Lloyd v. Tapy, 896 F.2d 1101, 1103-04 (7th Cir. 1990); L.S. Heath & Son, Inc. v. AT & T Info. Sys., Inc., 9 F.3d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1993)). In the Northern District of Indiana, a motion for summary judgment "must include a section labeled 'Statement of Material Facts' that identifies the facts that the moving party contends are not genuinely disputed." N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(a). The nonmoving party must then file and serve a response brief and "any materials that the party contends raise a genuine dispute." N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(1). Furthermore, the nonmoving party's "response brief or its appendix must include a section labeled 'Statement of Genuine Disputes' that identifies the material facts that the party contends are genuinely disputed so as to make a trial necessary." N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(2).

A Statement of Genuine Disputes "is a critical element of any response to a motion for summary judgment, because without it, the movant's version of the facts are accepted as undisputed." Carragher v. Ind. Toll Road Concession Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 981, 985 n.1 (N.D. Ind. 2013); see also Caldwell v. Klemz, No. 2:14-CV-455, 2017 WL 4620693, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 12, 2017). Furthermore, "[p]leadings that do not conform with the local rules may be stricken at the discretion of the court." Goltz v. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 177 F.R.D. 638, 640 (N.D. Ind. 1997) (citing Tapy, 896 F.2d at 1103; Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 858 (7th Cir. 1985); Graham v. Sec. Sav. & Loan, 125 F.R.D. 687, 688-89 (N.D. Ind. 1989)); see also Mayes v. City of Hammond, Ind., 442 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596 (N.D. Ind. 2006). "Moreover, it is a reasonable judgment on the part of the district court that strict, consistent, 'bright line' enforcement is essential to obtaining compliance with the rule and to ensuring that long-run aggregate benefits in efficiency inure to district courts." Goltz, 177 F.R.D. at 640 (citing Midwest Imps., Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311 (7th Cir. 1995)). The interpretation and enforcement of local rules is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., Ltd. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., 800 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cuevas v. United States, 317 F.3d 751, 752 (7th Cir. 2003)); Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 219 (7th Cir. 2015). To that point, the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly upheld "the entry of summary judgment when the non-movant has failed to submit a factual statement in the form called for by the pertinent rule and thereby conceded the movant's version of facts." Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 922-23 (collecting cases).

In pertinent part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) requires as follows:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

. . .

(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), (3).

If a party fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the district court may "consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The Court may also "grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). The enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) is left to the sound discretion of the district court. See Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Doe, 743 F.3d 1101, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2014).

In this case, the Plaintiff's Response [ECF No. 105] to the City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment does not contain a section or appendix which identifies "the material facts that the party contends are genuinely disputed so as to make a trial necessary." N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(2). This Response is also insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

The Plaintiff's Response [ECF No. 106] to Calfund's Motion for Summary Judgment is also deficient. Namely, Calfund included a section labeled "Statement of Material Facts" that clearly identified the facts that it contended were not genuinely disputed. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(a). Each of Calfund's factual assertions are individually numbered and supported by a citationto the record. The Plaintiff's brief does not contain a "Statement of Genuine Disputes" as required by Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2). Instead, the Plaintiff's Brief includes a section entitled "Historical Background- Undisputed Facts." Pl.'s Resp., pp. 2-3, ECF No. 106. This section largely provides a procedural overview of the case and does not identify purported disputes of material facts.¹ This section is also without citation to the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). The Plaintiff's Response then contains a twelve-page section entitled "Statement of Facts Which Show There Is No Right To A Summary Judgment." Id. However, this section is argumentative, conclusory, and without adequate citation to the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), (c)(3). Critically, the Plaintiff fails to respond to Calfund's Statement of Material Facts. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(2). As indicated above, the Plaintiff could have responded to Calfund's Statement of Material Facts because each factual assertion was individually numbered and supported by a citation to the record. It was the Plaintiff's responsibility under Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2) to clearly identify any disputes of material fact. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(2). The Court specifically finds that the Plaintiff's Response [ECF No. 106] fails to meet the requirements of Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2). Likewise, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's Response is deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

Furthermore, the Plaintiff's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2) has prejudiced Calfund. Specifically, as noted above, the factual assertions within the Plaintiff's Response [ECF No. 106] are without adequate citation to the record, are conclusory, and are intertwined with legal analysis. Thismakes it difficult for Calfund to respond to the Plaintiff's factual assertions. Further, the Plaintiff failed to file a "Statement of Genuine Disputes" and did not directly respond to Calfund's Statement of Material Facts. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b)(2). The Plaintiff's failure to comply with Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2) makes it difficult for Calfund to understand which of its factual assertions are in dispute. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 56(b)(2). Likewise, the City Defendants are prejudiced because the Plaintiff did not file a "Statement of Genuine Disputes." See id.

The Court is also burdened by the Plaintiff's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(b)(2). "A district court is...