State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al v. Personal Injury Solutions, LLC et al
Filing
28
ORDER: Defendants Personal Injury Solutions, LLC and Conrad D. Tamea, Jr.'s Amended Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. # 18 ) is denied. Defendants Personal Injury Solutions, LLC and Conrad D. Tamea, Jr.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 19 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/12/2017. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:17-cv-389-T-33AEP
PERSONAL INJURY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Defendants
Personal
Injury
Solutions,
LLC
and
Conrad
D.
Tamea, Jr.’s Amended Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc.
# 18), and Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 19), both of
which were filed on March 16, 2017. Plaintiffs State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and
Casualty
Company
filed
responses
in
opposition
to
both
Motions on April 3, 2017. (Doc. ## 26, 27). For the reasons
below, the Motions are denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs allege Personal Injury Solutions, at the
direction and supervision of Tamea, fraudulently billed for
services that were never rendered by using inappropriate
medical billing codes. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 22-34). Plaintiffs
also
allege
that
Personal
Injury
Solutions
billed
for
equipment that it was not licensed to sell (Id. at ¶¶ 37-38).
Finally, Plaintiffs allege to have paid over $190,000 in
fraudulent claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-48).
II.
Standard
A.
Rule 12(b)(1)
Federal
courts
are
courts
of
limited
jurisdiction.
“[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its
statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must
zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and
should
itself
raise
the
question
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
Motions
jurisdiction
to
dismiss
pursuant
to
for
Rule
lack
of
12(b)(1)
subject-matter
may
attack
jurisdiction facially or factually. Morrison v. Amway Corp.,
323
F.3d
920,
924
n.5
(11th
Cir.
2003).
When
the
jurisdictional attack is factual, the Court may look outside
the four corners of the complaint to determine if jurisdiction
exists. Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 732
(11th Cir. 1982). In a factual attack, the presumption of
2
truthfulness afforded to a plaintiff under Rule 12(b)(6) does
not attach. Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960 (11th Cir.
1999) (citing Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th
Cir. 1990)). Because the very power of the Court to hear the
case is at issue in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court is free
to weigh evidence outside the complaint. Eaton, 692 F.2d at
732.
B.
Rule 12(b)(6)
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court accepts
as true all the allegations in the complaint and construes
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v.
Bellsouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004).
Further, the Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable
inferences from the allegations in the Complaint. Stephens v.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th
Cir. 1990) (“On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the]
complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken
as true.”). However, the Supreme Court explains that:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.
3
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal
citations omitted). In addition, courts are not “bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
C.
Rule 12(e)
When a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that the
[defendant] cannot reasonably prepare a response,” the Court
can order a plaintiff to plead a more definite statement of
the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “The court should not do so
if it would frustrate the concept of notice pleading.” Blair
v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 8:16-cv-3529-T-30JSS,
2017 WL 770960, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2017).
III. Analysis
Rule 12 permits a party to file a motion rather than
serve a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Two
such motions are Rule 12(b) motions and Rule 12(e) motions.
While a party may join a motion under Rule 12 with any other
motion allowed by Rule 12, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(1), “[e]xcept
as provided . . ., a party that makes a motion under [Rule
4
12] must not make another motion under [Rule 12] raising a
defense or objection that was available to the party but
omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2).
The two exceptions to Rule 12(g)(2) are listed within
Rule 12(h). The first exception is that a party may raise the
defenses of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, to join a person required by Rule 19(b), or to
state a legal defense to a claim” in a pleading under Rule
7(a), by motion under Rule 12(c), or at trial. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(2). The second exception is that subject-matter
jurisdiction may be attacked at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3); see also Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F.3d 858,
861 (11th Cir. 1998).
A.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs base jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and
1367. (Doc. # 1 at 1-2). Section 1332 requires complete
diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy to
exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999).
State Farm Mutual and State Farm Fire are Illinois
corporations
with
their
respective
principal
places
of
business in Illinois. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 3, 5). Plaintiffs are
therefore
citizens
of
Illinois.
5
28
U.S.C.
§
1332(c)(1).
Personal Injury Solutions is a Florida limited liability
company (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 7), which is comprised of two members:
Conrad D. Tamea, Jr. and Judy Tamea, both of whom are citizens
of Florida (Doc. # 5 at ¶ 1(b)-(c)). Defendants are therefore
citizens of Florida. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH
Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004); Taylor
v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Complete
diversity of citizenship exists.
As to the amount in controversy, State Farm Mutual
alleges it has been damaged in excess of $190,000 and State
Farm Fire alleges it has been damaged in excess of $7,000.
(Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6). These allegations are supported by
documentation attached to the Complaint. (Doc. ## 1-1, 1-2,
1-3, 1-4). Although Defendants argue some of the claims paid
by Plaintiffs fall outside the statute of limitations and
should thus not be counted for purposes of determining the
amount in controversy, the Court disagrees. La Grasta v. First
Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A
statute of limitations bar is ‘an affirmative defense, and .
. . plaintiff[s] [are] not required to negate an affirmative
defense
in
[their]
complaint.”)
(citation
omitted
and
alterations in original). And while State Farm Fire’s alleged
damages are below the $75,000 threshold, jurisdiction is
6
proper under § 1367 because its claims arise out of a common
nucleus of operative fact as State Farm Mutual’s.
B.
Arguments under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e)
Defendants filed their Motion under Rule 12(e) prior to
their Motion under Rule 12(b). (Doc. ## 18, 19). As such,
except insofar as it challenges the Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction, the merits of which have been discussed above,
the Motion under Rule 12(b) is procedurally improper. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(g)(2). Furthermore, the Rule 12(e) Motion is denied
because the Complaint is simply not so vague or ambiguous
that Defendants cannot reasonably be required to respond. See
Royal Shell Vacations, Inc. v. Scheyndel, 233 F.R.D. 629, 630
(M.D. Fla. 2005) (noting that motions for a more definite
statement should not be used to obtain discovery). Finally,
when
taken
together,
the
two
Motions
exceed
the
page
limitations imposed by Local Rule 3.01(a). Accordingly, both
Motions are denied on that ground as well.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
Defendants Personal Injury Solutions, LLC and Conrad D.
Tamea, Jr.’s Amended Motion for More Definite Statement
(Doc. # 18) is DENIED.
7
(2) Defendants Personal Injury Solutions, LLC and Conrad D.
Tamea, Jr.’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 19) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
12th day of April, 2017.
8
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?