MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This case is one of dozens brought by Plaintiffs and their affiliates against insurance companies across the nation in an attempt to collect funds allegedly owed to Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAO”) under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSPA”).1 See Dkt. No. 26-5 at 10 n.1 (collecting cases). Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, and Series 16-08-483 commenced this putative class action on November 7, 2018, alleging that Defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company violated the MSPA by failing to reimburse Health Insurance Plan Of Greater New York (“HIPGNY”) for conditional payments it made as an MAO on behalf of persons insured by Defendant. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See Dkt. No. 26 at 1. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted and the case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND A. Legal Background 1. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act “[T]he MSP Act requires that entities known as ‘primary payers,’ such as insurance companies, must reimburse Medicare (or, as in this case, a Medicare Advantage Organization (‘MAO’)) for payments for medical items and services that were covered by the insurance company’s policy.” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. QBE Holdings, Inc., No. 6:18-CV- 1458, 2019 WL 1490531, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2019); see also 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii) (precluding Medicare from paying for items or services for which “payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under…an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan) or under no fault insurance”). Under the MSPA, an MAO can make a “conditional payment” for medical items and services if “a primary plan…has not made or cannot reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to such item or service promptly,” but the primary plan must reimburse the MAO for that payment “if it is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a responsibility to make payment with respect to such item or service.” See 42 USC §1395y(b)(2)(B). The MSPA creates a private right of action for double damages against primary payers that fail to reimburse the MAO for covered expenses. See 42 USC §1395y(b)(3)(A). 2. New York State No Fault Regulations Under New York State’s “No Fault Regulations,” before suing an automobile insurance company for personal injuries, the insured party must provide to its insurer (1) written notice setting forth the details of the accident, (2) written proof of health service expenses incurred, no later than 45 days after the services are rendered, and (3) written proof of work loss benefits and other necessary expenses incurred, no later than 90 days after the expenses are incurred. See 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-1.1(d). Additionally, the insurer can require the insured party to (1) execute a written proof of claim under oath, (2) submit to reasonable examinations under oath by any person named by the insurer, (3) provide authorization so the insurer can obtain his or her medical records, and (4) provide any other pertinent information that may assist the insurer in determining the amount due and payable. Id. B. Facts 1. The R.L. Claim Plaintiffs have allegedly developed a software that “captures data from different sources to…identify a Medicare eligible person for whom primary medical payments should have been made, along with any information stored as to potential class members.” See Dkt. No. 1 at
37, 38. Based on that information, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, who is a no-fault insurer, has “repeatedly failed to provide primary payment, or to reimburse secondary payments made by Plaintiffs’ assignors and Class Members,…for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.” See id. at 2. As a representative claim to this putative class action, the Complaint refers to an individual, R.L., who was allegedly enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan issued and administered by HIPGNY. See id. at 7. According to Plaintiffs, R.L. sustained several injuries in an accident on September 28, 2014, which required “medical items and services” as listed in the Complaint. See id. at
