MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC et al v. Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 20-cv-24911-GAYLES/TORRES
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC,
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MSP RECOVERY
CLAIMS SERIES 44, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY
OF FLORIDA and AUTO CLUB SOUTH
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (the
“Motion”) [ECF No. 11]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully
advised. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC (“MSPRC”), MSPA Claims 1, LLC
(“MSPAC”), and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (“Series 44”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
brought this putative class action against Defendants Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida
(“Auto Club Florida”) and Auto Club South Insurance Company (“Auto Club South”) (collectively
“Defendants”) seeking reimbursement for conditional payments made on behalf of Medicare Part
C enrollees in accordance with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP Act”).1
1 The Amended Complaint also alleged claims against Defendants Auto Club Insurance Company and Auto Club
Group Insurance Company (the “Severed Defendants”). On July 9, 2021, in accordance with the Parties’ joint motion,
the Court severed the claims against the Severed Defendants and transferred those claims to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [ECF No. 73]. As a result, the only remaining claims in the Amended
Complaint were Count I against Auto Club Florida and Count IV against Auto Club South.
Case 1:20-cv-24911-DPG Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
After the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in
part (the “Dismissal Order”), [ECF No. 98], the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion in MSP
Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Metropolitan General, holding that the allegations in the
complaint in that action, in conjunction with an exhibit nearly identical to exhibits in this case,
were sufficient to plausibly allege a claim under the MSP Act. 40 F.4th 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir.
2022) (Metropolitan I). As a result, this Court’s refusal to consider Exhibits B & C to the Amended
Complaint to determine whether Plaintiffs stated a claim was contrary to law. See Douglas Asphalt
Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151-52 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that “a change in controlling
law is one of the core reasons for filing and granting a motion for reconsideration”). Indeed, with
respect to alleging demonstrated responsibility, the allegations in the Amended Complaint are
indistinguishable from the allegations found sufficient in Metropolitan I.
Defendants’ reliance on MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Metropolitan General, No.
20-24052, 2023 WL 168758 (S.D. Fla. Jan 12, 2023) (Metropolitan II) is misplaced. In
Metropolitan II, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury-in-fact and therefore
did not have standing. Notably, the plaintiffs in Metropolitan II relied exclusively on the
spreadsheets attached as exhibits to the complaint and did not allege specific exemplars. Here, the
Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged the requisite injury-in-fact via the 6 exemplars—
without reference to Exhibits B & C. Moreover, district court opinions are not binding on this
Court. Accordingly, the Court vacates that part of its Dismissal Order refusing to consider Exhibits
B & C with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, [ECF No. 11], is GRANTED.
2. 	On or before February 11, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint that
conforms with the Court’s rulings.
Case 1:20-cv-24911-DPG Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, [ECF No. ], is DENIED as
MOOT.
4. 	The parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order on or before February 11, 2026.
5. 	Defendants’ Verified Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, [ECF No. 118], is DENIED as
MOOT based on Defendants’ representations at the telephonic status conference on
January 28, 2026.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of January, 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:20-cv-24911-DPG Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2026 Page 3 of 3