USA Hospitals v. Kemp

Filing 8

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 7/27/2015. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT
 FOR
 THE

SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

USA
 HOSPITALS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID
 KEMP,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.

15-­‐00332-­‐CB-­‐M

ORDER

This
 matter
 is
 before
 the
 Court
 on
 a
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 for
 lack
 of
 subject

matter
 jurisdiction,
 or
 in
 the
 alternative
 to
 stay
 proceedings,
 filed
 by
 the
 defendant,

David
 Kemp.

 (Doc.
 2.)

 After
 careful
 consideration
 of
 the
 motion,
 Defendant’s

supporting
 brief
 (Doc.
 3),
 Plaintiff’s
 response
 (Doc.
 6),
 and
 Defendant’s
 Reply

(Defendant’s
 reply,
 the
 Court
 finds
 that
 the
 motion
 is
 due
 to
 be
 denied.

Background

This
 action
 was
 initially
 filed
 in
 the
 Circuit
 Court
 of
 Mobile
 County
 Alabama

on
 May
 22,
 2015.
 On
 June
 26,
 2015,
 Kemp
 filed
 a
 notice
 of
 removal
 asserting

removal
 jurisdiction
 based
 on
 diversity
 of
 citizenship
 because
 Kemp
 is
 a
 resident
 of

Mississippi,
 USA
 Hospitals
 is
 an
 Alabama
 corporation
 with
 its
 principal
 place
 of

business
 in
 Mobile,
 Alabama,
 and
 the
 amount
 in
 controversy
 exceeds
 $75,000.

The
 Complaint
 is
 simple.

 It
 alleges
 that
 Kemp
 owes
 USA
 Hospitals

$106,366.98
 for
 medical
 treatment
 rendered
 to
 Kemp
 not
 paid
 by
 insurance.

 USA

seeks
 to
 recover
 that
 amount
 plus
 interest
 and
 attorney’s
 fees
 through
 claims
 of

open
 account,
 account
 stated,
 and
 breach
 of
 contract.

 According
 to
 the
 motion
 to

dismiss,
 these
 charges
 were
 incurred
 as
 result
 treatment
 for
 injuries
 Kemp
 received

in
 an
 automobile
 accident.

 Kemp
 “is
 currently
 in
 settlement
 negotiations
 with
 the

[d]efendant
 in
 the
 underlying
 collision
 case.”

 (Def.’s
 Br.
 2,
 Doc.
 3.)

On
 May
 29,
 2014,
 USA
 Hospitals
 filed
 a
 Notice
 of
 Hospital
 Lien
 in
 the
 Probate

Court
 of
 Mobile
 County,
 Alabama.

 This
 lien
 alleges,
 in
 relevant
 part:

Under
 the
 provisions
 of
 Title
 35,
 Chapter
 11,
 Division
 15,
 Code
 of

Alabama,
 1975,
 notice
 is
 hereby
 given
 that
 the
 University
 of
 South

Alabama
 Hospitals,
 a
 public
 body
 corporate
 whose
 address
 is
 2451

Fillingim
 Street,
 Suite
 3040,
 Mobile,
 Alabama
 3617,
 claims
 a
 lien
 for
 all

reasonable
 charges
 for
 hospital
 care
 treatment
 and
 maintenance
 by

injuries
 received
 by[
 ]
 David
 Kemp.
 .
 .
 .
 Upon
 any
 and
 all
 actions

claims,
 counterclaims
 and
 demands
 accruing
 to
 [Kemp],
 and
 upon
 all

judgments
 settlements
 and
 settlement
 agreements
 entered
 into
 by

virtue
 thereof
 on
 account
 of
 injuries
 giving
 rise
 to
 such
 actions
 claims,

counterclaims
 demands,
 judgments,
 settlements
 or
 settlement

agreements
 and
 which
 necessitated
 such
 hospital
 care.

(Doc.
 2,
 Ex.
 A.)

Issues
 Presented

Ironically,
 Kemp
 has
 invoked
 this
 Court’s
 removal
 jurisdiction
 only
 to
 file
 a

motion
 to
 dismiss
 for
 lack
 of
 subject
 matter
 jurisdiction
 or,
 alternatively,
 to
 stay.

Kemp
 argues,
 in
 essence,
 that
 subject
 matter
 jurisdiction
 is
 lacking
 because
 Plaintiff

has
 also
 filed
 a
 hospital
 lien
 and
 the
 amount
 of
 the
 hospital
 lien
 cannot
 be

determined
 until
 the
 underlying
 personal
 injury
 claims
 are
 reduced
 to
 judgment.

 In

response,
 USA
 Hospitals
 argues
 that
 its
 claims
 are
 not
 based
 on
 the
 hospital
 lien

statute.

Discussion

Kemp’s
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 or
 to
 stay
 rests
 entirely
 on
 Univ.
 of
 S.
 Ala.
 Hosps.
 v.

Blackmon,
 987
 So.
 2d
 1138
 (Ala.
 Civ.
 App.
 2007),
 a
 case
 involving
 the
 disputed

2

amount
 of
 a
 hospital
 lien.

 Blackmon
 arose
 in
 the
 context
 of
 a
 personal
 injury

lawsuit.

 Blackmon,
 who
 was
 injured
 in
 a
 car
 accident,
 sued
 the
 automobile
 and
 tire

manufacturers.

 As
 part
 of
 the
 settlement
 negotiations
 in
 that
 suit,
 “Blackmon
 filed
 a

motion,
 purportedly
 pursuant
 to
 §
 35-­‐11-­‐373.
 .
 .
 in
 which
 she
 asked
 the
 trial
 court
 to

determine
 the
 validity
 of
 USAH’s
 lien,
 the
 reasonable
 amount
 due
 on
 the
 lien,
 and

the
 manner
 in
 which
 .
 .
 .
 her
 potential
 settlement
 [proceeds]
 .
 .
 .
 should
 be

distributed
 between
 USAH
 and
 herself.”

 Id.
 at
 1140.

 The
 trial
 court
 subsequently

entered
 an
 order
 declaring
 the
 amount
 of
 the
 lien.

 Blackmon
 settled
 her
 claims

against
 the
 manufacturers,
 but
 that
 settlement
 was
 not
 reduced
 to
 judgment.

 The

hospital
 appealed
 the
 decision
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 amount
 of
 the
 lien.

 The
 Alabama

Court
 of
 Civil
 Appeals
 held
 that
 the
 trial
 court
 was
 without
 subject
 matter

jurisdiction
 to
 determine
 the
 amount
 of
 the
 lien
 because
 the
 underlying
 claim,
 i.e.

the
 dispute
 between
 Blackmon
 and
 the
 manufacturers,
 had
 not
 been
 reduced
 to

judgment.

 Simply
 put,
 §
 35-­‐11-­‐373,
 gives
 a
 trial
 court
 jurisdiction
 to
 determine
 the

amount
 of
 a
 hospital
 lien
 when
 the
 person
 who
 is
 the
 subject
 of
 the
 lien
 has
 filed
 a

claim
 in
 that
 court
 and
 the
 claim
 “has
 been
 reduced
 to
 judgment.”

 Id.

 The
 clear

language
 of
 the
 statute,
 according
 to
 the
 appellate
 court,
 required
 that
 the

underlying
 claim
 be
 reduced
 to
 a
 judgment
 before
 the
 trial
 court
 could
 exercise

jurisdiction
 to
 determine
 the
 amount.

 Because
 the
 settlement
 was
 never
 reduced
 to

a
 judgment,
 the
 trial
 court
 lacked
 subject
 matter
 jurisdiction
 under
 the
 lien
 statute.

The
 instant
 case
 is
 not
 controlled
 by
 Blackmon
 for
 several
 reasons.

 First
 and

foremost,
 no
 party
 has
 asserted
 jurisdiction
 under
 Ala.
 Code
 §
 35-­‐11-­‐373,
 which
 was

the
 only
 basis
 for
 subject
 matter
 jurisdiction
 in
 that
 case.

 Second,
 this
 case
 does
 not

3

involve
 the
 determination
 of
 the
 amount
 of
 a
 hospital
 lien
 or
 the
 lien
 statute.

Instead,
 it
 is
 a
 suit
 based
 on
 state
 common
 law
 claims
 for
 money
 owed
 on
 account

and
 breach
 of
 contract.

 Moreover,
 contrary
 to
 Kemp’s
 argument,
 nothing
 in

Blackmon
 or
 in
 the
 hospital
 lien
 statute,
 Ala.
 Code
 §§
 35-­‐11-­‐370,
 et
 seq.
 preempts

common
 law.

 Kemp
 has
 pointed
 to
 no
 Alabama
 law
 that
 would
 require
 a
 hospital
 to

choose
 between
 pursuing
 a
 lien
 and
 pursuing
 a
 common
 law
 claim.

 Nor
 has
 he
 cited

any
 law
 that
 would
 require
 a
 hospital
 to
 await
 the
 outcome
 of
 the
 patient’s
 personal

injury
 action
 before
 instituting
 a
 collection
 proceeding.

Conclusion

For
 the
 foregoing
 reasons,
 Defendant’s
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 or,
 alternatively,
 to

stay
 is
 DENIED.

DONE
 and
 ORDERED
 this
 the
 27th
 day
 of
 July,
 2015.

s/
 Charles
 R.
 Butler,
 Jr.

Senior
 United
 States
 District
 Judge

4