-2-laws which reduced the rates are preempted by the Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(30)(A) and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(b). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SupremacyClause claims on the grounds that they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claimupon which relief can be granted, the court will “accept as true all well-pleaded facts set forth inthe complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the pleader’s favor.”
Artuso v.Vertex Pharm., Inc.
, 637 F.3d 1, 5 (1
Cir. 2011). A complaint need contain only “a short andplain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.8(a)(2). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary,
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state aclaim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, __ U.S. __, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937,1949 (2009) (quoting
, 550 U.S. at 570).
In Counts I, II, III and IV of their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to challenge their Medicaidrates under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffsclaim in Counts I, II and III that RSA 126-A:3, VII(a), RSA 167:64, and New Hampshire Lawsof 2011, Chapters 223 and 224 are preempted by the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A)(hereinafter “Section 30(A)”), because they allegedly permit the State to reduce Medicaid ratessolely for budgetary reasons. In Count IV, Plaintiffs claim that the challenged state laws arepreempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(b) and 42 C.F.R. § 430.12. These claims should be dismissed.Because neither Section 30(A) nor 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(b) create privately enforceable rightseither under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or directly under the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause cannot
Case 1:11-cv-00358-SM Document 48-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 12