Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

ESTATE OF MARISA BLESS, : Case No. 1:23-cv-448

Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland

WARREN COUNTY BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Notice (Doc. 25), filed by Defendants

Wellpath, LLC and Amy Rose, in which they, among other things, request that they be

dismissed from this case. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 26) to Defendants

Wellpath and Rose’s Notice, to which Defendants Wellpath and Rose filed a Reply in

Support (Doc. 27). The parties also filed two Joint Status Reports (Docs. 28, 29) which

provide further details about the issues addressed in the Notice and subsequent briefing.

This matter is thus ripe for the Court’s review. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the request by Defendants Wellpath and

Amy Rose to be dismissed from this case.

BACKGROUND

On May 30, 2025, Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Amy Rose filed a Notice (Doc.

25). In their Notice, Defendants Wellpath and Rose (1) give notice that the automatic stay

provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) have been lifted in Defendant Wellpath’s Chapter 11

bankruptcy case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, (2) assert

that both Defendants Wellpath and Rose have been discharged as potential debtors

pursuant to Defendant Wellpath’s First Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, In

re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2025) (hereinafter

referred to as the “Bankruptcy Plan”), and (3) request that both Defendants Wellpath and

Rose be dismissed from the instant action. (Notice, Doc. 25, Pg. ID 175-76.) Plaintiff filed

a Response in Opposition (Doc. 26) to Defendants Wellpath and Rose’s request to be

dismissed from this case, to which Defendants Wellpath and Rose filed a Reply in

Support (Doc. 27).

While the parties provided little in terms of applicable law in their briefing, they

indicated in a Joint Status Report (Doc. 28) that this matter is ripe for the Court's review,

characterizing Defendants Wellpath and Rose’s Notice as a “Motion to Dismiss.” (See

First Joint Status Report, Doc. 28, Pg. ID 375.) The Court subsequently ordered the parties

to submit another joint status report, specifically addressing whether Plaintiff has opted

out of the third-party release included in the Bankruptcy Plan. (See 5/27/2026 Notation

Order.) The parties then filed another Joint Status Report (Doc. 29), in which Plaintiff

indicated that it did not opt out of the third-party release included in the Bankruptcy

Plan. (See Second Joint Status Report, Doc. 29, Pg. ID 378-79.) Plaintiff also requested the

ability to submit further briefing on this matter, although the parties, including Plaintiff,

had previously indicated that this matter was fully briefed and ripe for the Court's

review. (Id.; First Joint Status Report, Doc. 28, Pg. ID 375.)

LAW & ANALYSIS

The Notice (Doc. 25) filed by Defendants Wellpath and Rose has been pending for

well over a year, all parties have had ample opportunity to brief the issues in this matter,

and the parties indicated that this matter is ripe for the Court’s review. (See First Joint

Status Report, Doc. 28, Pg. ID 375.) Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to

adjudicate this matter based on the briefing and status reports before it. The Court thus

proceeds to the issues outlined in the Notice (Doc. 25), as well as the subsequent briefing

and status reports.

As outlined above, Defendants Wellpath and Rose request that they be dismissed

from this case, as they were both discharged as potential debtors pursuant to the

Bankruptcy Plan. (Notice, Doc. 25, Pg. ID 175-76.) The Bankruptcy Plan includes two

provisions that are relevant here. First, the Bankruptcy Plan discharges claims against

Defendant Wellpath and bars creditors from “continuing in any manner any action or

other proceeding of any kind on account of or in connection with or with respect to any

such claims or interests[.]” (Bankruptcy Plan, Doc. 25, Pg. ID 315.) Second, certain

“releasing parties,” including “an incarcerated individual that does not affirmatively

elect to opt out[,]” are deemed to have “conclusively, absolutely, unconditionally,

irrevocably, and forever, released and discharged . . . any and all claims, interests,

damages, remedies, [and] causes of action. . . based on or relating to, or in any manner

arising from, in whole or in part . . . [Wellpath’s] business operations. . . .” (Id. at Pg. ID

“Except as otherwise provided ... in the plan, . . . the confirmation of a

[bankruptcy] plan . . . discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of

such confirmation[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A). Such a discharge “not only releases or

voids any past or future judgments on the discharged debt; it also operates as an

injunction prohibiting creditors from attempting to collect or to recover the debt.”

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 215 (2024) (cleaned up). Therefore,

consistent with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Plan, any liability by Defendant

Wellpath to Plaintiff has been discharged.

As for the Bankruptcy Plan’s release of third parties, the Court is mindful of the

Supreme Court's warning in Harrington that “a discharge operates only for the benefit of

the debtor against its creditors and ‘does not affect the liability of any other entity.”

Harrington, 603 U.S. at 215 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 524(e)); see also McLemore v. Cnty. of

Mahoning, No. 4:23-CV-1144, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 254261, at *9 n.5 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 9,

2025) (discussing the questions raised by Harrington regarding opt-out releases). But, the

Bankruptcy Plan here specifically releases claims against non-debtors, like Defendant

Rose (who was employed by Defendant Wellpath and acting within the scope of her

employment during the time of Plaintiff’s allegations), unless a creditor, like Plaintiff,

opted out by July 30, 2025. (Bankruptcy Plan, Doc. 25, Pg. ID 180, 263, 313; Compl., Doc.

1, 4 4, 14, 20.) Plaintiff indicates that it did not opt out of the third-party release included

in the Bankruptcy Plan. (See Second Joint Status Report, Doc. 29, Pg. ID 378-79.)

Therefore, again consistent with the Bankruptcy Plan, any liability by Defendant Rose to

Plaintiff has been discharged.

Plaintiff argues that even if the liability of Defendants Wellpath and Rose has been

discharged, dismissal would not be appropriate, as “Plaintiff has a right to establish

nominal liability against a discharged debtor in order to collect from a debtor’s insurer.”

(Response, Doc. 26, Pg. ID 331.) “[I]t is well settled that a tort victim may sue a debtor as

a nominal defendant after the debtor is discharged from bankruptcy, as long as the suit

is purposed solely to establish the debtor’s liability in order to effect recovery from an

insurer.” Mauriello v. Great Am. E & S Ins. Co.,554 F. App’x 382, 384 (6th Cir. 2014) (cleaned

up). But, the Bankruptcy Plan specifically precludes this Court from maintaining

Defendant Wellpath as a nominal defendant — instead, the Bankruptcy Plan provides that

the proper entity to pursue in a nominal capacity is Wellpath’s Liquidating Trust.

(Bankruptcy Plan, Doc. 27, Pg. ID 342.) Accordingly, while Plaintiff can maintain

Defendant Rose as a nominal defendant in this action, it cannot maintain Defendant

Wellpath as a nominal defendant. At this junction, Plaintiff has two options as it relates

to establishing the nominal liability of Defendant Wellpath: (1) Plaintiff may proceed in

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to the

Bankruptcy Plan’s alternative dispute resolution procedures, or (2) Plaintiff may litigate

against Wellpath’s Liquidating Trust as a nominal party in this action for the purpose of

establishing liability. See Nelms v. Wellpath, LLC, No. 21-10917, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

28450, at *5-7 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2026) (promulgating this approach and collecting

cases).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Amy Rose’s request to be dismissed as

defendants in this action, included in their Notice (Doc. 25), is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

2. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Wellpath, LLC are DISMISSED

without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to seek any appropriate relief in the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas or to

substitute the Liquidating Trust as a nominal defendant here;

3. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Amy Rose SHALL PROCEED for the

sole purpose of determining her liability in order to effect recovery from an

insurer; and

4. The remaining parties SHALL FILE an amended Rule 26(f) Report within

14 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ue mM dell

ity □

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND