Mao-MSO Recovery II, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing without leave to amend plaintiffs’ action, alleging that they were assignees of certain private insurers-Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) seeking recovery of medical costs that MAOs paid on behalf of covered individuals, where defendant, as primary insurer, should have paid said costs. Record showed that different entity to which plaintiffs had no contractual relationship had actually paid medical costs at issue in instant complaint. As such, without evidence that plaintiffs had obtained rights to recover from said entity, plaintiffs had no rights to enforce and no standing to sue. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs’ third attempt at identifying MAO to which they had received assignment of rights that had actually paid medical costs at issue in instant complaint. However, Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing instant case “with prejudice” where dismissal was based on lack of standing. Too, Dist. Ct. erred in sanctioning plaintiff’s attorneys, where most of alleged misrepresentations were result of honest mistakes concerning complicated corporate arrangements.