MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Halifax Health, Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, remanding matter to state court, directing Clerk to terminate motions and close file. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 7/19/2018. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1790-Orl-31DCI

HALIFAX HEALTH, INC,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 2, 2018, the Court dismissed
Count I of the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 8-30), in which the Plaintiff attempted to assert a
claim under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b). (Doc. 75). On July 18,
2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. (Doc. 104).
The two remaining counts involve state law claims – one under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (Count II) and one for unjust enrichment (Count
III). Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are Florida companies – and, to the extent it might be
relevant, the Plaintiff is asserting claims (purportedly) assigned to it by another Florida company,
Florida Healthcare Plus, Inc. (Doc. 1-1 at 8-9). Thus, as a result of the dismissal of Count I, the
Court does not possess original jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
The Court did possess supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at the time the
case was removed. However, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §1367, permits a
federal court to decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). In determining whether to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, the court should “take into account concerns of comity, judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and the like.” Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir.
1999). This case is still in the early stages of litigation, with discovery having been stayed since
December of last year. (Doc. 73). As such, it does not appear that the factors of judicial
economy, convenience or fairness weigh in favor of maintaining this matter in federal court. On
the other hand, resolution of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims will depend on determinations of
state law, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that state
courts, not federal courts, should be the final arbiters of state law. See Baggett v. First Nat. Bank
of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 1997). The Court will therefore decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
This case was originally filed in state court in Dade County, then removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, before being transferred to this court.
(Doc. 1, Doc. 48). Federal district courts in removal cases must remand, rather than dismiss, state
claims over which they decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Myers v. Central Florida
Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201, 1226-27 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing cases). Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending
motions and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on July 19, 2018.

-2-