The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiffs Alphonse A. Demaria, Leonard Probe and James Proodian have brought this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated chiropractic physicians. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
Defendants Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. and Horizon Healthcare of New Jersey, Inc. (collectively "Horizon") underwrite and/or administer the health insurance benefits of more than 3.6 million persons in New Jersey ("Plan Participants") through various employer-sponsored, individual and governmental health insurance coverage plans ("Plans"). Through these Plans, Horizon provides reimbursement for certain health care services rendered to Plan Participants ("Covered Services"), subject to the terms set forth in each individual Plan. Many of these Plans are governed by ERISA. Other plans are ERISA-exempt.
Plaintiffs are chiropractors who would regularly provide four types of chiropractic treatments to Plan Participants. Namely: (1) evaluation and management services ("E/M"); (2) chiropractic manipulative therapy ("CMT"); (3) passive adjunctive modalities ("passive modalities"); and (4) active therapeutic procedures ("active therapies"). In the course of providing those services to Plan Participants, all three Plaintiffs assert that "as a matter of course," they would obtain written assignments ("Assignments") from Plan Participants which entitled Plaintiffs to any claims for reimbursement which would otherwise be payable to the Plan Participants. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Pursuant to these Assignments, the Plan Participants also remained personally liable to Plaintiffs for any non-Covered Services. (Id.) Plaintiffs, however, have not provided copies of any of these purported Assignments, nor have they set forth the exact language contained in these writings.
Plaintiffs would thereafter seek reimbursement from Horizon for those services.*fn2
Plaintiffs allege that from at least March 2004 until April 15, 2010, Horizon systemically and improperly denied their insurance benefit claims for E/M services, passive modalities, and active therapies, and only provided benefits for the CMT services. Horizon's proffered reasons for denying those reimbursement claims, included, among others:
"THIS PROVIDER WAS NOT CERTIFIED/ELIGIBLE TO BE PAID FOR THIS PROCEDURE/SERVICE ON THIS DATE OF SERVICE"; "B106 THIS SERVICE IS NOT A COVERED BENEFIT WHEN BILLED BY THIS TYPE OF PROVIDER"; "F027 PROVIDER TYPE/SPECIALTY CANNOT PERFORM THIS TYPE OF SERVICE"; "52 THE REFERRING/PRESCRIBING/RENDERING PROVIDER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO REFER/ PRESCRIBE/ORDER/PERFORM THE SERVICE BILLED"; "97 PAYMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE ALLOWANCE FOR ANOTHER SERVICE/PROCEDURE"; "X800 REIMBURSEMENT FOR THESE SERVICES IS INCLUDED IN THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE CHIROPRACTIC MANIPULATIVE TREATMENT." (Id. ¶ 92.)
Horizon later took the position that it "bundled" reimbursement for all four services into a "global fee" for CMT. And on October 7, 2009, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance ("DOBI") held that Horizon's bundling practices violated New Jersey's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, N.J.S.A. § 17B:30-13.1. The DOBI therefore ordered Horizon to begin "to individually evaluate whether E/M [services, passive modalities, and active therapies] billed by chiropractors are significantly separable from CMT or other services provided by chiropractors." (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs concede that Horizon was in compliance with the DOBI's order by April 15, 2010, but nonetheless now seek relief from Horizon for its past pattern of improperly processing reimbursement claims for chiropractic treatments.
On December 16, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced this action in district court. Counts One and Two of the Complaint allege violations of § 502(a) of the Employment Retirement Security Income Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3). The Court has original jurisdiction over claims arising under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e); Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987). The remaining counts in the Complaint allege various violations of New Jersey state law, over which Plaintiffs assert that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 23 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367).)
Presently, Horizon moves for dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting, among other things, that the Court should dismiss Counts One and Two because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have standing to assert claims against Horizon for its alleged § 502(a) ERISA violations.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims have facial plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). This means that the Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 1965; Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.").
Presently, Horizon moves for dismissal of Counts One and Two pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because the Assignments alleged by Plaintiffs do not demonstrate statutory standing for Plaintiffs to assert their ERISA claims.*fn3 And when, as here, standing is challenged on a motion to dismiss, the burden falls on the proponent of the claim to establish that it has standing to sue. See Franco v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 818 F.Supp.2d 792, 810-811 (D.N.J. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, ...