United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
YOUA J. XIONG, STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, MANAGED HEALTH SERVICES INS. CORP. and HOSPITAL REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs,
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GOUGH, INC., KYLE L. LEMONS and ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
DISMISS HOSPITAL REIMBURSMENT SERVICES, INC. (DKT. NO. 4);
GRANTING STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 16) AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA (DKT. NO. 7).
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20, 2019, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims
that arose from a car accident in La Porte County, Indiana.
Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff named the State of Wisconsin
Department of Health Services, Managed Health Services
Insurance Corp. and Hospital Reimbursement Services as
plaintiffs with possible subrogated interests. Id.
at 1. He named four defendants-Ohio Security Insurance
Company; Gough, Inc.; Kyle Lemons; and Artisan and Truckers
Casualty Company. Id. at 1-2.
days later, the plaintiff asked the court to dismiss Hospital
Reimbursement Services, Inc. as a plaintiff. Dkt. No. 4.
than a month after filing the complaint, three of the four
defendants filed a motion for change of venue under 28 U.S.C.
§1391 or, in the alternative, for dismissal due to lack
of jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 7. On the same day that the
defendants filed the motion, counsel for plaintiff Youa J.
Xoing filed a letter agreeing to the change of venue. Dkt.
No. 13. The fourth defendant, Artisan and Truckers Casualty
Company, filed an answer, cross-claim and counterclaim two
days later. Dkt. No. 14.
days after defendant Artisan and Truckers filed its answer,
the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services filed a
motion asking the court to dismiss it as a plaintiff. Dkt.
date, Artisan and Truckers has stated no position on the
motion to transfer venue.
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Hospital
Reimbursement Services, Inc. (Dkt. No. 4)
plaintiff indicates that Hospital Reimbursement Services,
Inc. had a hospital lien for medical expenses incurred by the
plaintiff, but that it has released and discharged the lien;
therefore, the plaintiff asks the court to dismiss this
plaintiff. Dkt. No. 4. No party has opposed the motion; the
court will grant it and dismiss Hospital Reimbursement
Services, Inc. as a plaintiff.
Unopposed Motion to Dismiss State of Wisconsin Department of
Health Services (Dkt. No. 16)
State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services identifies
itself as an involuntary plaintiff and asserts that it was
“incorrectly” named as a plaintiff because it had
a subrogated interest for payment of the plaintiff's
medical expenses. Dkt. No. 16. DHS has asked to be dismissed,
indicating that it has determined that the medical expenses
it paid are below the established threshold to pursue
recovery. Id. It stated in its motion to dismiss
that it released and discharged its subrogation lien.
Id. at 1. No party has objected to the motion; the
court will grant it and dismiss DHS as a plaintiff.
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No.
of the defendants-Ohio Security Insurance Company, Gough,
Inc. and Kyle Lemons-have asked the court to transfer venue
to the Northern District of Indiana. Dkt. No. 7. Along with
the motion, counsel for the defendants filed a letter,
indicating that his original plan had been to file a
stipulation in which the defendants and the plaintiff agreed
to the transfer of venue. Dkt. No. 6. The letter stated,
however, that when counsel checked with the clerk of court,
counsel was told “that a stipulation would not be
accepted, ” and that he “was directed to file a
motion.” Id. In his letter, defense counsel
asked counsel for the plaintiff to state whether he opposed
the motion. Id. The same day-June 18, 2019-counsel
for the plaintiffs filed a letter indicating that he did not
oppose the motion for transfer of venue. Dkt. No. 13.
court did not immediately act on this information-at the
time, it was presiding over a two-week civil rights case. Six
days later, DHS filed its motion to be dismissed as a
plaintiff. Dkt. No. 16. When a couple of months passed
without the court ruling on these various motions, counsel
began writing letters asking when the court would rule. Dkt.
Nos. 19 (from the plaintiffs' counsel); 20 (from defense
counsel, providing a proposed order). Eventually, counsel for
DHS filed a letter, reminding the court that it had asked to
be dismissed and that the court hadn't ruled on that
motion. Dkt. No. 22. Counsel asked that the court rule on the
motion to dismiss before deciding the motion to transfer
venue and, apparently out of concern that the court
wouldn't grant that request, objected to the motion to
transfer venue. He asked the court to rule “as soon as
court regrets that it did not rule on the parties'
motions as promptly as they would have liked. Given the
shortage of district court judges that has existed since
September 2016 (when Judge Randa passed away) and the
increase in the court's case load, as well as a heavy
trial schedule, the court has not ruled ...