Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quinones v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 28, 2017

Juan Rios Quinones, Plaintiff,
v.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated; UnitedHealthcare, Inc.; UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., Defendants.

         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S MARCH 29, 2017 ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS IV, VI, VII, AND VIII; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT X OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On April 18, 2017, the Court filed its Amended Order: (1) Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts IV, VI, VII, and VIII; (2) Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count X of Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint; and (3) Denying as Moot Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“4/18/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 271.[1] On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff Juan Rios Quinones (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4/18/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”).[2] [Dkt. no. 268.] Defendants UnitedHealth Group Inc., UnitedHealthcare, Inc., and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. (collectively “Defendants”) filed a memorandum in opposition on May 1, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 15, 2017.[3] [Dkt. nos. 273, 274.] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). The Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate manifest error of law and fails to provide new evidence that was previously unavailable to him.

         STANDARD

         A motion for reconsideration

“must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No. 11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D. Hawai`i June 2, 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This district court recognizes three circumstances where it is proper to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Tierney v. Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL 1858585, at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Riley v. Nat'l Ass'n of Marine Surveyors, Inc., Civil No. 14-00135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 25, 2014).

         BACKGROUND

         On October 24, 2016: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts IV, VI, VII, and VIII (“Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion A”); [dkt. no. 210;] Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Count X of Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint (“Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion B”); [dkt. no. 214;] and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion”) [dkt. no. 212]. The 4/18/17 Order granted Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion A and Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion B, and denied Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion as moot. See 4/18/17 Order, 2017 WL 1395604, at *12.

         DISCUSSION

         The Motion for Reconsideration seeks reconsideration of the Court's ruling on Count VI, which alleges the tort of bad faith. Plaintiff contends the Court applied the incorrect standard for a claim of bad faith and newly discovered evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact. [Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 2.] The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.

         I. Manifest Error of Law

         As to Plaintiff's assertion that the Court applied an incorrect standard of law for Count VI, bad faith, Plaintiff overlooks that the 4/18/17 Order explained:

Hawai`i courts have recognized that “every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything that will deprive the other of the benefits of the agreement.” Best Place, Inc. v. Penn Am. Ins. Co., 82 Hawai`i 120, 123-24, 920 P.2d 334, 337-38 (1996) (citations omitted). “Good faith performance ‘emphasizes faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party.'” Hawaii Leasing v. Klein, 5 Haw.App. 450, 456, 698 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.