SpecialtyCare, Inc. et al v. CIGNA Healthcare, Inc.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:24-cv-01378-RGA Document 29 _ Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SPECIALTYCARE, INC., REMOTE
NEUROMONITORING PHYSICIANS, PC,
and SENTIENT PHYSICIANS, PC,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 24-1378-RGA

Vv.

CIGNA HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
WHEREAS, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R (D.I. 26) recommending that I grant
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (D.I. 15) in this case;
WHEREAS, I have considered de novo the R&R, Plaintiffs’ objections to the R&R (D.1.

27) and Defendant’s response to the objections (D.I. 28);

WHEREAS, I agree with the R&R, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,' and the
numerous district courts” that have held that there is no private right of action to enforce the

payment of an IDR determination, and thus that Counts I, II, and III should be dismissed for

failure to state a claim;

' Guardian Flight, L.L.C. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 140 F.4th 271, 277 (Sth Cir. 2025).
2 See R&R, DI. 26 at 7n. 3 & 10 n. 6 (collecting cases). See also Specialty Care Inc. v.
Meritain Health, Inc., C.A. No. 25-198-MN, D.I. 42 (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2026).

Page 1 of 2
AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 1:24-cv-01378-RGA Document 29 _ Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

WHEREAS, I agree with the R&R and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit? that
Plaintiffs do not have standing, for lack of a concrete injury, to sue under ERISA, and thus that
Count IV should be dismissed for lack of standing;

WHEREAS, I agree with the R&R that I should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims, and thus that Counts V, VI, and VII should be dismissed;

NOW THEREFORE, I OVERRULE the objections, ADOPT the R&R (D.I. 26), and
GRANT the motion to dismiss (D.I. 15); and

Counts I, II, and III are DISMISSED with prejudice and Counts IV, V, VI, and VII are
DISMISSED without prejudice. mn

IT IS SO ORDERED this sh day of March 2026.

United States District Judge

3 Guardian Flight, 140 F.4th at 278. I note that, despite the R&R’s reliance on Guardian in
connection with the ERISA recommendation, Plaintiffs do not mention the case in their
objections to that recommendation. (D.1. 27 at 8-10).

Page 2 of 2