the medical procedures for which they sought reimbursement.2 (Id. ¶ 28.) State Farm relied on
these codes when it assessed and granted counterclaim-defendants’ reimbursement requests.
(Id.) As a result of counterclaim-defendants’ fraud, which State Farm avers occured in all (or at
least many) of the reimbursement requests,3 (id. ¶ 33), State Farm has paid at least $2,000,000 to
counterclaim-defendants, (id. 31).
On May 23, 2008, Allied filed its complaint against State Farm. In its complaint, Allied
asserts several state law claims centering on State Farm’s refusal to remit payment to Allied in
satisfaction of Allied’s reimbursement requests. Prior to answering, State Farm filed a
counterclaim against Allied. (Doc. No. 22.) On November 12, 2008, counterclaim-defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike State Farm’s first counterclaim, arguing that State Farm’s
counterclaim was procedurally improper. (Doc. No. 41.) By order of March 26, 2009, I granted
counterclaim-defendants’ motion and dismissed State Farm’s first counterclaim.
State Farm filed its answer on November 11, 2008. (Doc. No. 37.) The answer raised
several affirmative defenses and incorporated by reference the language of the counterclaim
originally (but improperly) filed as Doc. No. 22. (See Answer at 26.) On November 17, 2008,
counterclaim-defendants filed a second motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss State Farm’s
counterclaim and several of State Farm’s affirmative defenses. (Doc. No. 44.) State Farm filed
its response to Allied’s second motion to dismiss on December 15, 2008, and later, with the
court’s permission, supplemented its response on December 18, 2008. Counterclaim-defendants
2 Under this system, a medical provider assigns a current procedural terminology code to each medical procedure administered. (Countercl. ¶ 28.)
3 The counterclaim does not identify or approximate the number of reimbursement requests that are at issue.