Arboleda v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 51

ORDER denying without prejudice 44 Defendant's Motion to Strike Damages Claimed in Violation of the Florida Constitution and Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 6/19/2018. (DRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DIEGO ARBOLEDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-406-FtM-38CM

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion to Strike Damages
Claimed in Violation of the Florida Constitution and Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) and
Plaintiff’s response in opposition. Docs. 44, 45. For the reasons stated below, the
motion is denied.
On July 19, 2017, this case was removed from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Doc. 1.

According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff Diego Arboleda was involved in a car
accident on October 10, 2016 due to George Allen Percifield’s 1 negligent operation of
a motor vehicle.

Doc. 2 ¶¶ 5-8.

As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered

permanent bodily injury, pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement and loss of the

1

Mr. Percifield is not a party to this case. Doc. 2 ¶ 6.

capacity to enjoy life as well as medical expenses. Id. ¶ 13. Mr. Percifield’s bodily
injury liability coverage 2 was insufficient to cover Plaintiff’s damages. Id. ¶ 9. At
the time of the accident, Plaintiff had an insurance policy in full force and effect
through State Farm, which included coverage for underinsured motorists. Id. ¶ 10.
Therefore, Plaintiff alleges State Farm is liable for Plaintiff’s damages in excess of
Mr. Percifield’s liability coverage.

Id. ¶¶ 11-13. Plaintiff’s only reference to an

amount of damages in the Complaint is that the action seeks over $15,000.00. 3 Id.
¶ 1.
Plaintiff sought medical treatment from Gulf Coast Medical Center, which is
part of the Lee Memorial Hospital System (“Lee Memorial”), for injuries related to
the car accident. Doc. 44 at 1. State Farm approved $10,221.62 of the $50,028.61
that Lee Memorial charged for the services, and paid $2,420.42 of the approved total. 4

Id. at 2. This left $7,813.20 remaining unpaid of the approved amount of charges.
Id. However, Lee Memorial subsequently claimed a lien against Plaintiff in the
amount of $40,478.61. 5 Id.; Doc. 44-3.

2

Mr. Percifield was insured by State Farm at the time of the accident. Doc. 10 at 4.

The amount in controversy was the subject of a motion to remand, which the Court
denied because Plaintiff’s pre-suit demands referenced medical bills in excess of $75,000 at
the time of removal. See Docs. 10, 15, 16, 24, 25.
3

The $2,420.42 State Farm paid to Lee Memorial included $12.00 in interest. Doc.
44 at 2 n.1. State Farm paid only $2,408.42 of the approved amount because this amount
exhausted Plaintiff’s remaining Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits under his policy.
Id. at 2.
4

5

It is unknown how Lee Memorial calculated the lien amount. See Doc. 44 at 2.

-2-

In the instant motion, State Farm argues the lien is invalid because it is
unconstitutional under Article III, Section 11(a)(9) and Article I, Section 10 of the
Florida Constitution, and it is unenforceable under Section 627.736(5)(a) of the
Florida Statutes.

Id. at 3. State Farm asserts Lee Memorial’s lien violates the

Florida Constitution because it relies on the authority of an unconstitutional
statute—Chapter 2000-439, Laws of Florida. Id. at 4-7 (citing Lee Mem’l Health

Sys., 230 So. 3d 558, 561-64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) (finding Chapter 2000-439,
Section 18, Laws of Florida violates Article III, Section 11(a)(9) and Article I, Section
10 of the Florida Constitution because it “authorizes the imposition of a lien based on
a private contract” and “impairs the obligations of contracts entered into by an
insurer and its insured”)). State Farm also contends Lee Memorial’s lien violates
Section 627.736(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes because it attempts to collect from
Plaintiff more than the payment amount State Farm approved. Id. at 9-11. As a
result, State Farm contends Plaintiff does not owe Lee Memorial the amount of the
lien, and thus the amount cannot be recoverable from State Farm.

Id. at 3.

Accordingly, State Farm “moves to strike as evidence of Plaintiff’s damages the
amount that [Lee Memorial] is attempting to collect from Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff
is attempting to recover from [State Farm].” Id.
State Farm claims it has standing to challenge the validity of Lee Memorial’s
lien because Plaintiff intends to recover the full amount of the lien from State Farm
and will use the lien to support his claim for damages. Id. at 8. Plaintiff responds
State Farm improperly is attempting to adjudicate a dispute between Lee Memorial

-3-

and Plaintiff, to which State Farm is not a party. Doc. 45 at 1. Plaintiff also asserts
that regardless of the lien’s validity, Plaintiff currently is indebted to Lee Memorial
for the full amount of the lien.

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff refuses to address the

constitutionality of the lien, arguing it would be Lee Memorial’s responsibility to
defend the constitutionality of its own lien. See id.

Plaintiff further argues that

State Farm’s motion can be denied solely for failing to comply with Rule 5.1 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a party who is questioning the
constitutionality of a state statute to promptly file a notice stating the constitutional
question and identifying the document that raises it, and to serve the notice and
document on the state attorney general.

See id. at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1);

Reliable Tractor, Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., No. 7:07-CV-00043-HL,
2007 WL 4373555, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2007).
The Court denies State Farm’s motion because, as an initial matter, it fails to
assert the legal grounds for the relief sought. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires a motion for a court order to “state with particularity the grounds
for seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Also, Local Rule 3.01 of the Rules of the
Middle District of Florida plainly states:
In a motion or other application for an order, the movant shall include a
concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis
for the request, and a memorandum of legal authority in support of the
request . . . .
M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a). Here, State Farm’s requested relief appears to be that the
Court “strike as evidence of Plaintiff’s damages” the lien Lee Memorial holds against
Plaintiff. Doc. 44 at 1. Although State Farm argues the various reasons why the

-4-

lien allegedly is invalid, it fails to meet the basic requirement of providing the legal
authority permitting or requiring the Court to strike such evidence. See generally

id.
To the extent State Farm is seeking relief under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that rule is not applicable here. Rule 12(f) permits the Court to
“strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). The
damages related to the lien, however, are not referenced in Plaintiff’s pleadings such
that Rule 12(f) would apply. See generally Doc. 2; see also Tooker v. Scott, No. 2:15cv-272-FtM-38CM, 2016 WL 6276910, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016) (“Courts across
the Eleventh Circuit have held that motions filed pursuant to Rule 12(f) that ask the
Court to strike documents other than pleadings are improper.”). Additionally, Rule
37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forbids a party from using information
or a witness “to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial” if the party
failed to provide the information or identify the witness as required by Rule 26(a) or
(e), unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c);

see Lincoln Rock, LLC v. City of Tampa, No. 8:15-cv-1374-T-30JSS, 2016 WL
6138653, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2016) (granting in part a motion to strike a
supplemental report brought under Rule 37(c) for failure to comply with Rule 26(e)).
However, State Farm does not argue Plaintiff violated Rule 26 such that Rule 37(c)
would apply. See generally Doc. 44. Therefore, State Farm’s motion is due to be
denied for failure to assert the grounds on which the motion may be granted.

-5-

The Court also denies State Farm’s motion because at this stage of the case it
is untimely. State Farm “will have every opportunity to present the appropriate
motion in limine to the trial court to challenge the admissibility of any document
produced.” See Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-548-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL
4596118, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2011). It would be premature for the Court to
determine the admissibility of particular evidence for trial at this time. 6 See id.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Damages Claimed in Violation of the Florida
Constitution and Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a) (Doc. 44) is DENIED without
prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of June, 2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record

Rule 5.1 requires the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 2403, to “certify to the appropriate
attorney general that a statute has been questioned.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(b). Because the
Court is denying State Farm’s motion without considering the merits of the constitutionality
argument, the Court will not certify that the constitutionality of Chapter 2000-439, Laws of
Florida has been challenged at this time. If State Farm chooses to pursue this argument at
the appropriate time, the Court reminds State Farm that it must comply with the
requirements of Rule 5.1.
6

-6-