Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Royal Mile Co. v. UPMC

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

August 21, 2014, Decided; August 21, 2014, Filed

Case No. 10-1609

Opinion

 [*557]  OPINION

CONTI, Chief District Judge

I. Introduction

Pending before the court in this antitrust action is a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 249) filed by plaintiffs Royal Mile Company, Inc. ("Royal Mile"), Pamela Lang ("Lang") and Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. ("Cole's Wexford" and collectively with Lang and Royal Mile, "plaintiffs"). Defendants UPMC and Highmark, Inc. ("Highmark") oppose plaintiffs' [**3]  motion for leave arguing that permitting amendment based upon the allegations set forth in the proposed third amended complaint, which was attached to plaintiffs' motion for leave, would be futile, and the class action allegations contained within the proposed third amended complaint are insufficient as a matter of law. (ECF Nos. 253, 254, 256, 266, 269, 271, 273, 277, 278, 283.)

Based upon the court's review of the parties' voluminous submissions and the hearing held with respect to those submissions on April 7, 2014, plaintiffs' motion for leave will be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth herein.

II. Procedural History

On December 2, 2010, plaintiffs initiated this case by filing a complaint alleging (1) UPMC and Highmark engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and (2) UPMC tortuously interfered with plaintiffs' existing and prospective business relations in violation of Pennsylvania common law. (ECF No. 1.) On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against UPMC and Highmark. (ECF No. 77.) On September 17, 2012, UPMC and Highmark each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a brief in support of their [**4]  motions alleging plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief. (ECF Nos. 77, 78, 80, 81.)

On October 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement with Highmark, certification of class, and appointment of class counsel (the "motion for preliminary approval of class settlement"). (ECF No. 88.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

40 F. Supp. 3d 552 *; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116224 **; 2014-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,881

ROYAL MILE COMPANY, INC., PAMELA LANG and COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UPMC and HIGHMARK, INC., Defendants.

Prior History: Royal Mile Co. v. UPMC & Highmark, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182630 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 16, 2013)

CORE TERMS

conspiracy, third amended complaint, small group, rates, plaintiffs', competitors, allegations, measure of damages, health insurance, class certification, damages, filed rate doctrine, motion for leave, ascertainability, antitrust, switched, court of appeals, second amended complaint, class action, premiums, class member, railroads, insurers, motion to dismiss, docks, marginalized, customers, providers, steel, factual allegations