E. et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
R.E. and O.E.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER REOPENING CASE
2:22-cv-00296-RJS
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ R.E. and O.E. Motion to Reopen Case and File Second
Amended Complaint.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) based on Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois’s denial of
benefits for mental health care O.E. received.2 On December 27, 2023, the court reversed Blue
Cross’s denial of benefits and remanded the case for Blue Cross “to conduct a full and fair
review of Plaintiff’s claims.”3 On remand, Blue Cross again denied Plaintiffs’ request for
benefits and raised a new basis for the denial.4
On December 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Motion, asking the court to reopen this case and
grant leave to amend the complaint.5 Blue Cross does not oppose the Motion.6
1 Dkt. 49, Motion to Reopen Case and File Second Amended Complaint (Motion).
2 See Dkt. 2, Complaint.
3 Dkt. 38, Memorandum Decision and Order at 26, 28.
4 Motion at 2.
5 See Motion.
6 See generally Docket.
Case 2:22-cv-00296-RJS-DBP Document 50 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 permits reopening a case “within a reasonable time”
for any “reason that justifies relief.”7 “Generally, when an ERISA case is remanded to the plan
administrator for further proceedings, the decision on remand is reviewable by the District Court
upon motion by either party.”8 Plaintiffs seek review of Blue Cross’s conduct following this
court’s remand. Blue Cross does not oppose the Motion. Accordingly, the court finds this case
falls within the general rule and warrants reopening the case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint with the
court’s leave and instructs the court to “freely give leave when justice so requires.”9 The court
has discretion to permit leave.10 In the absence of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of
amendment,” the court should grant leave.11
The Amended Complaint includes new allegations based on Blue Cross’s conduct during
remand.12 There is no evidence of undue delay because the case is being reopened. The new
allegations have become relevant since the case was closed. There is no evidence of bad faith,
undue prejudice, or futility. Further, Blue Cross does not oppose the Motion. Accordingly, the
court grants leave to amend.
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), 60(c)(1).
8 Graham O. v. United Behavior Health, 1:18-cv-31-TS, 2024 WL 170739, at *1 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2024) (collecting
cases).
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
10 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971).
11 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
12 Motion at 5; see also Dkt. 49-2, Proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Case 2:22-cv-00296-RJS-DBP Document 50 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Motion is GRANTED.13 Plaintiffs shall file the
Second Amended Complaint appended to the Motion within seven days of this order.14 The
parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a stipulated scheduling order within
fourteen days of this order.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen the case and reassign Magistrate Judge
Dustin B. Pead under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
13 Dkt. 49.
14 See Dkt. 49-2, Proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Case 2:22-cv-00296-RJS-DBP Document 50 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3