Roberts v. Equian, LLC
8:24-cv-02255
| D. Maryland | Jul 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Roberts, Teah, Surrette) were injured in car accidents, received hospital treatment, and had health insurance.
- Instead of billing insurance, providers hired Equian and OptumInsight to collect the “full rack rate” of their services directly from plaintiffs’ personal injury settlements.
- Equian sent letters to plaintiffs’ attorneys, requesting payment and proposing agreements acknowledging plaintiffs’ obligation to pay the undiscounted charges.
- Plaintiffs sued Equian and OptumInsight, alleging violation of Maryland’s Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), common law (money had and received, unjust enrichment, negligence), Declaratory Judgment Act, and RICO.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, challenging personal jurisdiction over OptumInsight and attacking all claims on various substantive grounds.
- The court granted dismissal (with and without prejudice) as to some claims and defendants, but allowed several claims against Equian to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over OptumInsight | OptumInsight and Equian operated as one entity in MD, acted as debt collectors; OptumInsight directed activity. | OptumInsight distinct corporate parent; no direct collection activity in MD; no control over Equian. | No personal jurisdiction; claims vs OptumInsight dismissed. |
| Applicability of MCDCA to Equian | Equian is a "collector" under the statute; letters were demands for payment on debts plaintiffs did not owe (balance billing unlawful). | Equian only requested consideration, not a demand; collections not from a consumer transaction; no debt owed. | Plaintiffs plausibly state MCDCA claims; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Common law (money had/received & unjust enrichment) | Equian wrongfully collected/retained money it wasn’t entitled to; benefited at plaintiffs’ expense. | Plaintiffs did not confer benefit; money collected from third parties; not an appropriate common law claim. | Claims sufficiently pleaded for pleading stage. |
| RICO claims sufficiency | Equian’s conduct was fraudulent and constituted predicate racketeering acts, justifying RICO remedies. | No pattern of racketeering or specific predicate acts; ordinary commercial dispute, not RICO-scale conduct. | Failed to allege necessary pattern; RICO claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for facially plausible claim)
- H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (what constitutes a RICO pattern)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (elements of a civil RICO claim)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (parent-subsidiary corporation veil piercing)
- Jacques v. First Nat. Bank of Maryland, 307 Md. 527 ("intimate nexus" exception to economic loss rule in negligence)
- Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, 402 Md. 281 (elements of unjust enrichment in Maryland)
- Bourgeois v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 430 Md. 14 (pleading for money had and received claim)