SCHWARTZ v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JEFFREY SCHWARTZ Individually and ) as the Parents and Natural Guardians of ) J.S., ) CARI SCHWARTZ Individually and as the ) Parents and Natural Guardians of J.S., ) J. S. a Minor, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-00069-JPH-MPB ) ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC. ) d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND ) BLUE SHIELD, ) ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP, INC, ) EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC, ) KROGER PRESCRIPTION PLANS, INC, ) KROGER SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Defendant Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. removed this case to federal court on January 8, 2020. Dkt. 1. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiffs moved to remand the case. Dkt. 28. On February 12, 2020, Anthem; Accredo Health Group, Inc.; and Express Scripts, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 31; dkt. 33. On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, dkt. 50, and an amended complaint, dkt. 51.

Because Plaintiffs amended their complaint within 21 days of service of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs could amend their complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore DENIED as unnecessary. Dkt. [50].

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, dkt. 51, is now the operative complaint and the original complaint is void, see Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). Defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint are therefore DENIED without prejudice as moot. Dkt. [31]; dkt. [33]. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, dkt. [28]—which also involves the original complaint, see dkt. 28; dkt. 40; dkt. 41—is also DENIED without prejudice as moot. Dkt. [28].

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint contains no jurisdictional allegations. See dkt. 51; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Counsel has an obligation to analyze subject- matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always has the responsibility to ensure it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009).

The Court’s obligation includes knowing the details of the underlying jurisdictional allegations. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. and Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a jurisdictional statement analyzing jurisdiction or a motion to remand based on the amended complaint by April 9, 2020. All Defendants SHALL RESPOND to the jurisdictional statement or motion to remand by April 23, 2020.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/13/2020 Sjamnu Patnaik Hanbore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Lawrence M. Benjamin REED SMITH LLP (Chicago) [email protected] James F. Bleeke BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS [email protected] John W. Borkowski HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP [email protected] Nicholas Calvin Deets HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC [email protected] Christopher Andrew Farrington BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS [email protected] Manuel Herceg TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP (Indianapolis) [email protected] Dan J. Hofmeister, Jr. REED SMITH LLP [email protected] Mary K. Mullen HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP [email protected] Michael Patrick Nolan HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP [email protected] Tammara Danielle Porter TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP (Indianapolis) [email protected]