UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X THE CENTRAL ORTHOPEDIC GROUP, : LLP, : : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM DECISION AND : ORDER -against- : : 24-cv-7022 (BMC) AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, : : Defendant. : ----------------------------------------------------------- X

COGAN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 9, 2025 Memorandum Decision and Order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ERISA claim. This is one of eight related cases that plaintiff, a healthcare provider, has brought against defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company or its affiliates. Plaintiff does not participate in Aetna’s health care plans, but has rendered services to patients who are Aetna’s insureds. Based on the patients’ having assigned their rights under the insurance policies to plaintiff, plaintiff contends that Aetna is obligated to pay for the services rendered at Aetna’s out-of-network rate. Federal jurisdiction is premised on ERISA,

(a)(1)(B), and the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under

(a). In dismissing this case, the Court adopted by reference the Court’s analysis dismissing a virtually identical case, The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 24-cv-7014,

(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2025) (the “7014 case”). The differences between this case and the 7014 case were immaterial to the reasons warranting dismissal. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration in both cases on the same bases.! The Court has denied plaintiff's reconsideration motion in the 7014 case. Accordingly, the analysis set forth in 7014 case is adopted herein by reference, and plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in this case is also denied. As in the 7014 case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiff's state-law claims without prejudice. SO ORDERED.

US.D.J. Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 15, 2025

' The Court notes that plaintiff erroneously filed its motion for consideration for this case on the docket for the 7014 case, which the Court subsequently terminated. Plaintiff never refiled that motion on this docket and instead filed a letter addressing its error and requesting the Court consider the motion properly filed in this case. While this motion may be procedurally defective, the Court disposes of it on the merits by reference to the disposition of the plaintiff’ □ substantively identical motion in the 7014 case.