Shelby County Health Care Corporation v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying 116 Motion to certify questions of law to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 10/9/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION
VS.

PLAINTIFF

3:13-CV-00194-BRW

SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Pending is the Southern Farm Bureau Defendants’ Motion to Certify Question of Law to the
Arkansas Supreme Court (Doc. No. 116). Plaintiff has responded, and the Southern Farm Bureau
Defendants have replied.1 For the reasons set out below, the Motion to Certify is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit concluded that an Arkansas choice-of-law analysis would

favor the application of Tennessee law to the lien impairment claim and remanded for further
proceedings in light of its determination.2 Now, Farm Bureau Defendants ask that the choice-oflaw question be certified to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.3
II.

DISCUSSION
The issue of whether a question of law will be certified to a state court falls within the

sound discretion of the federal district court.4 In general, the district court has a duty to address

1

Doc. Nos. 119, 120.

2

Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 855 F.3d 836, 844
(8th Cir. 2017).
3

Doc. No. 116.

4

Perkins v. Clark Equip. Co., 823 F.2d 207, 209 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lehman
Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974)).
1

aspects of state law even though that area of the law is still unsettled.5 A district court should not
avoid its duty of determining the issues before it unless it is a close question and there are few
state sources to enable a nonconjectural determination.6 Furthermore, “[o]nce a question is
submitted for decision in the district court, the parties should be bound by the outcome unless
other grounds for reversal are present.”7 Once a case has been decided, certification can be
granted only in limited circumstances.8
As Plaintiff has pointed out,9 the choice-of-law question was addressed both by this
Court and the Eighth Circuit before Southern Farm Bureau Defendants sought certification. To
grant certification of the question after the Eighth Circuit’s determination would be like a
“second chance at victory.”10 Though in limited circumstances certification can be granted after
an adverse judgment, the choice-of-law question itself was not a particularly close one for the
Eighth Circuit. The Farm Bureau Defendants rely on the Eighth Circuit expressing some
uncertainty in how the Arkansas Supreme Court would apply one of the Leflar factors in its
choice-of-law analysis,11 but the Eighth Circuit already considered that this particular factor

5

Jung v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 651 F.3d 796, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Guillard v.
Niagra Mach. & Tool Works, 488 F.2d 20, 24 (8th Cir. 1973)).
6

Skakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Cmty. v. City of Prior Lake, 771 F.2d 1153, 1157 n.2
(8th Cir. 1985).
7

Perkins, 823 F.2d at 210; see also Boyd Rosene & Assocs., Inc. v. Kan. Mun. Gas
Agency, 178 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.1 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding that most circuits, with the exception
of the Fifth Circuit, will generally not certify questions after a decision has been issued).
8

Perkins, 823 F.2d at 210.

9

Doc. No. 119.

10

Perkins, 823 F.2d at 210 (citing Complaint of McLinn, 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir.

1984)).
11

Doc. No. 116 (quoting Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp., 855 F.3d at 844 (“[W]e are
not confident that the Arkansas Supreme Court would agree with the intermediate court.”)).
2

could favor the application of Arkansas law and decided that the other Leflar factors would favor
the application of Tennessee law regardless.12 Certifying this question then would not likely
change the outcome of the choice-of-law analysis.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the Motion to Certify is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2018.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp., 855 F.3d at 844 (“[T]he fourth factor concerning
advancement of the forum’s interest arguably points to Arkansas law. . . [i]n any event, we are
not convinced that the forum’s interest outweighs the concerns previously expressed about forum
shopping and the maintenance of interstate order that favor application of Tennessee law.”).
3