Opinion

Hucks v. Wellpath, LLC

Court
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Filed
Feb 24, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.5%

administratively denying motions to dismiss without prejudice to refile after the bankruptcy stay is lifted

How later courts described this case

  • administratively denying motions to dismiss without prejudice to refile after the bankruptcy stay is lifted

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-797-RJC-DCK

SAVANNAH HUCKS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM AND

) RECOMMENDATION

v. )

)

WELLPATH, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Mecklenburg County’s Motion To

Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 47), “Defendant Crystal Ballard

And Wellpath, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No.

51), and “Defendants Garry McFadden, Larisha Brown, and Unique Phillips’s Motion To Dismiss

Amended Complaint” (Document No. 54). These motions have been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having

carefully considered the arguments, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will

respectfully recommend that the motions be administratively denied without prejudice.

I. DISCUSSION

On November 15, 2024, after the filing of the instant Motions To Dismiss, Defendant

Wellpath LLC (“Wellpath”) filed a “Notice Of Petition Of Bankruptcy And Notice Of Stay”

(Document No. 66). Defendant Wellpath informed the Court that this proceeding is stayed

pending its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Southern District of Texas. (Document No. 66).

Although this case is currently stayed, three Motions To Dismiss remain pending.

(Document Nos. 47, 51, 54). “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their

dockets…with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases .” Moss v. City Hosp.,

Inc., No. 3:19-CV-187, 2020 WL 12584435, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 10, 2020) (quoting Dietz v.

Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016)); see also Brown v. Wellpath, No. 3:24-CV-480-FDW-

SCR, 2025 WL 240950 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2025) (administratively denying motions to dismiss

without prejudice to refile after the bankruptcy stay is lifted).

Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the pending motions to

dismiss (Document Nos. 47, 51, 54) be administratively denied without prejudice and that

Defendants be permitted to refile motions to dismiss, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted.

II. RECOMMENDATION

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that

“Mecklenburg County’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No.

47), “Defendant Crystal Ballard And Wellpath, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint” (Document No. 51), and “Defendants Garry McFadden, Larisha Brown, and

Unique Phillips’s Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint” (Document No. 54) be

administratively DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

III. TIME FOR OBJECTIONS

The parties are hereby advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written objections to the proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and recommendation contained herein may be filed within fourteen (14) days

of service of same. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service

of the objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections to this Memorandum and

Recommendation with the District Court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the

District Court. Diamond v. Colonial Life, 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, failure to file timely objections will preclude

the parties from raising such objections on appeal. Id. “In order ‘to preserve for appeal an issue

in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue

with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the

objection.’” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Midgette,

478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)).

IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

Signed: February 24, 2025

b) cnt

David C. Keesler “ey

United States Magistrate Judge get

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.