Henson v. Capital Seniorcare Ventures, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiff's 38 Motion to remand is granted and denying as moot plaintiff's request for a hearing on her motion to remand; further denying plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs and separate defendant Column Guaranteed, LLC's 7 Motion to dismss remains pending for the State Court to resolve; further case shall be remanded forthwith to the Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on May 2, 2013. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
LAURA E. HENSON, as Power
of Attorney for and on behalf
of BARBARA J. SIMON
Case No. 2:13-CV-2018
CAPITAL SENIORCARE VENTURES, LLC;
COLUMN GUARANTEED, LLC; SLC PROPERTIES, LLC;
SLC PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC; SLC PROPERTY
INVESTORS, LLC; EOR-ARK, LLC; VAJ, LLC;
SLC OPERATIONS MASTER TENANT, LLC;
SLC OPERATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC; SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITIES OF ARKANSAS, LLC; SLC PROFESSIONAL
HOLDINGS, LLC; SLC PROFESSIONALS, LLC;
SENIOR VANTAGE POINT, LLC; ADDIT, LLC;
QUALITY REVIEW, LLC; JOHN W. DWYER; CAPITAL
FUNDING GROUP, INC.; CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC;
CSCV HOLDINGS, LLC; ARKANSAS SNF OPERATIONS
ACQUISITION, LLC; ARKANSAS NURSING HOME
ACQUISITION, LLC; CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC;
LANA ROGERS, in her capacity as Administrator
of Pointer Trail Health and Rehabilitation, LLC;
JOHN DOES 1-5; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; POINTER
TRAIL HEALTH AND REHABILITATION; POINTER TRAIL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
(Doc. 38) and supporting Memorandum Brief (Doc. 39), Defendants’
Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 53).
reasons reflected herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 38)
Page 1 of 5
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this case is remanded
to the Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas.
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the
Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas, alleging negligence,
medical malpractice, common law civil conspiracy, violations of
certain Arkansas statutes protecting the rights of nursing home
(See Doc. 5 ¶¶ 57-143).
On January 18, 2013, Defendants jointly filed a Notice of
Removal (Doc. 1) claiming entitlement to removal under 28 U.S.C.
conspired to defraud HUD, Medicare, and Medicaid.
argued that because Plaintiff must prove an underlying wrongful
act to establish a civil conspiracy, she must prove that the
Defendants violated Federal laws and regulations regarding HUD
financing, Medicare, and/or Medicaid and therefore her claim for
civil conspiracy necessarily raised a stated federal issue.
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to
§ 1331 because no federal question is presented in Plaintiff’s
Page 2 of 5
properly-pleaded civil conspiracy claim,
programs or agencies in a pleading.
and federal question
Should the Court find a
federal question, Plaintiff alternatively moved for the Court to
sever and remand all other claims.
Plaintiff also moved for an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and a hearing on
her motion to remand.
claims that implicate significant federal issues.”
Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing,
jurisdiction over state law claims “demands not only a contested
inherent in a federal forum.”
Id. at 313.
Defendants specifically argued that their alleged wrongful
conduct under Federal statutes and regulations constitutes an
Defendants contend that in order for Plaintiff to prove
her civil conspiracy claim she is required to prove violations
of certain federal statute and regulations.
paragraphs comprising her complaint, merely outline the manner
Page 3 of 5
in which the Defendants funded the purchase and operation of
their facilities, not that the funding itself was a violation of
federal statutes and regulations.
(Doc. 39 at 6).
argues the references to HUD, Medicare, and Medicaid cannot be
conspiracy claim does not allege any improper obtaining of funds
from HUD, Medicaid, and Medicare programs.
Instead, the alleged
operations and patient care into lease and fee arrangements with
federal money and why, not how they got it.”
Slater v. Capital
SeniorCare Ventures, LLC, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00447-DPM (E.D.
Ark. April 4, 2013) (citing Compare Gaming Corp. of America v.
Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 551 (8th Cir. 1996).
that Defendants obtained federal funding is incidental to the
issue arises from the same.
Page 4 of 5
Resolving all doubts in favor of remand to preserve the
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities, any federal issues present are not disputed
Slater, 5:12-cv-00447-DPM, at 2. (citing Central
Cooperative, 561 F3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 38) is GRANTED in part
remanded is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s request for a hearing on her
motion to remand is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff’s request for
attorney fees and costs in pursuit of this motion is DENIED.
Separate Defendant Column Guaranteed, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 7) remains pending for the State court to resolve.
Crawford County, Arkansas.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2013.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?