Jump to:

Lorillard

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., Plaintiffs, -Against- Philip Morris, Incorporated, Defendants. Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion to Intervene. No. Cv 98-3287

Date: 19 Mar 1999
Length: 6 pages
82118222-82118227
Jump To Images
spider_lor 82118222_8227

Fields

Author
Bschorr, P.J.
Carberry, P.B.
Fitzpatrick, V.R., J.R.
Hefter, M.C.
Mcdevitt, H.K.
Talley, M.J.
Date Loaded
06 Dec 2001
Type
PLEA, PLEADING
Document File
82118117/82118478/Litigation Bcbs of Nj V. PM Court Papers - Vol. IV
82118118/82118477/Litigation Bcbs of Nj V. PM Court Papers - Vol. IV
Area
LEGAL DEPT. FILE ROOM/CENTRAL FILES
Characteristic
MARG, MARGINALIA
Site
N14
Master ID
82118119/8476

Related Documents:
Request
R1-080
Named Organization
Blue Cross + Blue Shield
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Nj
Independence Blue Cross
Pa Blue Cross + Blue Shield
PM, Philip Morris
States
Author (Organization)
Blue Cross + Blue Shield
Dewey Ballantine
Litigation
Feda/Produced
Recipient
Gold, S.M.
Named Person
Rivkin, H.
W, J.B.
Reilly, J.P.
Recipient (Organization)
Usdc Ed Ny
UCSF Legacy ID
fbf54d00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: fbf54d00
NLIiKRi.ghtFAX Server 31~2199 10:59 PAGE 007/7 ~ghtFAR ; SHOOK .FIAt1I} Y For the reasons stated above, the Proposed Intervenor's motion to intorvena should be denied. I)ated: New York, New York Alarch 19, 1999 Respectfu32p submitted, 1301 Avenue u€the Nevr'York, New York 3 f}t}19-6U92 (212) 259-8i300 Of Counset: Michael C. Hefier QMFI 2556) Heather K. Mci}evi.tt (Fltv£ 9973) Paul B. Carberry (PC 0339) Of Gonnsel: Martha J. Talley Attorneys for Piaintiffs The BC/BS Plans
Page 2: fbf54d00
10:59 PAGE 005/7 htFA% Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield Plans located in Pennsylvania. At the time this intervention motion was fiied, those Pennsylvania Plans were parties plair:iff in this to have purchased health care coverage from not only Independence, b However, last week, all four of the Pennsylvania Plans dismissed their claims e is no knger any reason for Nfr.l2ivkin to seek to intervene here. There are presently no claims under Pennsylvania law. To the extant Mr. Rivkin, as a subscriber of a Pennsylvania Plan, seeks to bacco industry, he may do so in his own lawsuit However, any intervention in this uld not only be inconsistent with the dictates of efther prong of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules, but F€rrthermore, the status of a subscriber of a Plan that is no longer in this case presents new and different standing issues that wilt only fiuther complicate #his case. e advancing Pennsylvania state law claims that would not otherwise be in this quirements of Rule 24(a)('L) to qualify for intervention as of riglst. Inn order to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), the proposed intervenor must meet the foliosvirjg four-part test: action; (3) an impairment of that interest without intervention; and (4) the movant's interest is not adequately represented by the other parties to the litigation.
Page 3: fbf54d00
a1LRK Ait;htFAX Server SH{7OK, aiARDY 1Q;58 PAtiE 004/7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE S$IELD t:'F NEW JERSEY, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, _agalml _ PHILIl' MORRIS, INCORPORATED, et al: No. CV 48-3287 (JBW) Magis#rate.Fudge Steveu M. Gold PLAIlNTIFFS' I4ffP4IURADtDUM OF LAW IN OPP[33iTIQN TO PLAIAITII+`T+-INTERVEN(3R'S MOTION TO INMRVENE PIaintiffs -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans located in California, Delaware, Flarida, Georgia, Louisiana, ltrfaine, ivfaryland, Massachusetts, Miahigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Ver€turnt, Virginia, West Virginia and the E7istrict of Columbia (the "SCIBS Plans'l -- respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to the motion of Proposed Intervenor Harry ieferred to hereln as `°Rivkin" or the "Proposed Intervenar), on behalf of hiraseif ilarlp situated, to intervene in this action pursuant to Rule 24 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As alleged in the Pmposed Intervenar's complaint (ttte "Praposrd Camplaint"), Iiarty R.ivkin purports to be a purchaser af health care coverage from and is a subscriber of Independence Blue Cross (°`Independcnce"l a not-for-profit health care insurance provider located in Phitadelphia, Pennsylvania. Rivkin seeks to intervene in behalf af a purported class af individuals who are alleged
Page 4: fbf54d00
WLRK tiightFA}C Server 3J22t9S HOOK HARDY 39,42 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea C o,. Inc. v Tm*m of East H=pton.' 178 F.R.D. {E.i}.N.Y. 1998) {(citing United S~= v. Fiftey Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, ..t3 (2d Cir. 1494)}. In the Second Cizcuit, all four of these factors must be satisfied to qualify for ion as ofright< Seeg.g. Washin on E4eo. Coog v. Massachusetts ivfun. 14:58 PAGE t748/? Wholesale Etec. Co.. 922 F.2s192, 96 (2d Cir. 1990). The Proposed Intervenor wholly fails t ati fourth elements of the Rule 24 test. Simply put, since drawn their claims, the subject matter of this lawsuit has the nothing to do with any int tion underRuie 24(b)(2) is also not warran ivki these circumstances. There is no claim by Rivkin, a Pennsylvania resident and subscriber of a Plan no longer in this action, which has a question of law or fact in common with.the e Blue Cross Plans all operating in states other than Pennsylvania and seeking rismages fr3r medical cgsts they paid and in which Itiv2cin could have no conceivable interest. if as Mr. Itivkin states in his letter to the Court of March 39, 2949, he wants to "pmtect the rights of Pennsylvania Blue Cross and Blue Shield subscribers" he should be required to do so in his own action and not here. Intervention should not be used to inject new or collateral issues into an existing action, particularly when it serves to delay and complicate the litigation.
Page 5: fbf54d00
---
Page 6: fbf54d00
---

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: