Tracy L. Reid, individually, and on behalf of M.A.R., Plaintiff - Appellee
BCBSM, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Defendant - Appellant, Michael Rothman, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Medical Plan, Group No. 4G175-00, Defendant - Appellant
Submitted February 11, 2015.
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.
Tracy Reid, individually, and on behalf of M.A.R., Plaintiff - Appellee, Pro se, Vashon, WA.
For BCBSM, Inc., doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Defendant - Appellant: Joel Allan Mintzer, BCBSM, Inc., Eagan, MN.
For Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Medical Plan, Group No. 4G175-00, Defendant - Appellant: Joel Allan Mintzer, BCBSM, Inc., Eagan, MN.
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
The issue in this case is whether the district court erred in refusing to grant vacatur. We remand to provide the district court an opportunity to explain its decision.
This case arises from a dispute about Tracy Reid's health insurance coverage. Reid worked as an attorney in Minnesota and received health insurance from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota through her law firm. In 2008, her son M.A.R. was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. One of the treatments M.A.R. received for his diagnosis was behavioral therapy. Reid's Blue Cross policy initially covered this treatment. In 2012, however, Blue Cross informed Reid her policy would exclude coverage for behavioral therapy beginning in 2013. Reid, on behalf of herself and M.A.R., subsequently brought suit in the district court, seeking to enjoin Blue Cross from excluding behavioral therapy. Blue Cross moved to dismiss Reid's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, dismissing most of Reid's claims but allowing her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (" MHRA" ) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ) to proceed.
On October 31, 2013, Reid moved to Arizona; she lost her Blue Cross coverage some time thereafter. Although the parties dispute exactly when Reid's Blue Cross coverage stopped, they do not dispute
that once it did, her prayer for injunctive relief became moot. Accordingly, Blue Cross filed a motion requesting that the district court (1) dismiss the case as moot and (2) vacate its Rule 12(b)(6) ruling. Reid similarly moved to dismiss the case as moot, but she urged the district court not to vacate its Rule 12(b)(6) ruling. The district court then entered an order granting Reid's motion to dismiss, granting Blue Cross's motion to the extent it sought dismissal, and denying Blue Cross's motion to the extent it sought vacatur. In its order, the district court provided no explanation for its denial ...