DAVITA INC. v. ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Remand to State Court of Chatham County. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied. The case is remanded to the State Court of Chatham County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 3/27/18. (wwp) Modified on 3/27/2018 (wwp).

f r !iL E t r n
I
U

C^OUR
OISTRICT I
U.S.
srArEs DrsrRrcr colfriiAbdilAli 0l\1
rN rHE rrNrrED

DrsrRrcr oF GEolfrmiR pH
rHE sourHERN
?7
SAVANNAH DIVISION

I

DAVITA INC. , successor to
Gambro Heafthcare, Inc. ,
Plaintiff,

C A S E N O . C V 41 7 - I 3 1

v.
H
'
S T . J O S E P HS , / C A N D L E R E A L T H
S Y S T E M S ,I N C . , d / b / a T h e C a r e
N e t w or k ,
Defendant.

ORDER
the

Before
Remand and

Court

Costs.

of

motion

Pfaintiff's

and DENIED IN PART. As a result,
the

Court

State

request

of

this

Chatham County,

Motion

( D o c'
is

to

For

Inc''s

the

B' )

PART

G R A N T E DI N

case

to
REI'IAI{DED

is

Plaintiff's

Georgia'

DENIED.

fees is

attorneys'

for

Davita

Plaintiff

Pal.ment

for

reasons,

following

is

BACKGROI'ND
This

case

contractuafly
services.
medlcaf
j-nsurance

alleged

the

lnvolves

agreed upon fees
to

According
services
plan

to

the

the

complaint,

indivlduals

Defendant

( D o c . 1 , C o m p 1 . 5 l 9 l1 , 4 ' )

for

offers

provision

The services

eligible
Plaintiff

in

the

of medical
provides

Plaintiff

enrolfed
to

pay

to

failure

a

heafth

e m p L o y e e s'
provides

to

Defendant's
ear\'i

^Ac

plaintj

r-

ulL

tf

thaL
h

insureds,

-l

lIvL

:

alleged

under

lor

Lhese

damages

of

52,044,505.98

n,,rc,r.nr

nef ,.ndrnj-

pursuant

to

federaf

romorrcd

claims

eon,r

ri

trr

28

U.S,C.

rhc

the

in

In

Lhe

based

on

)()

seeks
sracutory

trA

q

rhic

A

f-.]rrrr

l.r

Employee

fu.II

remit

plus

7-d-T

its

breached

Plaintiff

a^mnl,ainj-

("EF.rSA" ,
)

4
1.91

suit

Lng Lo

9 11 4 . )

(

A

S 1331,

under.

of

A^f

r- r:

\

CompI. )

(Id. ,

fail

1n-l1

lLlL

fifed

principal,

in

n

limelrr

by

employee,

qlq

/r v. l
I'
\

Defendant

(Td.

services.

covered

Plaintiff

that

contracc

the

alle.'es

r.1- a

breach,

cLaimS

payment

inrsrocr

r:-r

L^l- r.r-^L,sLwEcrl

Dlain-i.f

a

to

those

c19 rscrrrstiL

rrr'l

ChaLham County.

Plainfiff

obl-garions

ra-l-

for

schedule

tlll 5-B,r

^^nr

Cou.rt of

fee

services

{-t-a

r:ombl^ini-

..rnl-

-c:

Parv

SraLe

the

(ld.

covered

Based on this
rhe

with

h )r r
!

Defendant.
_

provided

,.,r-

r.l

9uvslrruu

and

it

along

presence

the

\

of

Income

Retirement

u.s.c.

1q

s 1001-146r

(rd. )
In iLS MoLlon to
alleged

only

contractuaL

to

PLaintifI,

ERISA

or

complaint

state

Law

cfaim

agreement

plan

benef lt

a

Remand/ P,aintitI

between

subject

Lo ERISA.

it

stare
in

this

it

argues
for

r nr.l

(Doc.

n6

breach
f an

B at

can efecL
I aw.

has

/'15.

case

to

purposefu i I y

avoid

the

f

4-8. )

beLween bringing

and

that

a

iL
of

the
any

h^f

According

claim

under

drafted

former.

has

(Id. )

rhe
fn

response,
removable

because

generally

Defendant

under ERISA. (Doc. 15 at

have

could

Plaintiff

case

this

that

argues

hrnrrnhl-

iI

a

is

,^lrim

B-12.)
AIiIAI,YS I S

STANDARD
OF REVIEW
general

In
irrricdint

in

by

hear

to

authorized
Kokkonen v.

cases

For

first

-rav renove rl'e raLLer

S 1441(a) ,
jurisdiction
to

back

r','

nnrm:l

uv|

vv'

I

tAo

for

are

those

tr ?^

which

of

rr

'l

n,,ac1-

1316/

dlstrict

the

i nn

1319

lrr

(1lth

in

uhe originaf

remand the
1447 (c) .

nct

lhe

iams

Will

2001).

U.S.C.
aq

.-aqeq

case

When a

court,

the

exislence

Best

v.

One type

of

jurisdiclion

Constitution,

T--

matter

subiect

have original

28

2B U'S.C.

sLate

nrorri

Cir.

the

States."
reforred

if
court.

S

of

a defendant

court,

i ' r r I s c lr r : t i n q ,

courls

United

375

for

U.S.C.

hrrrden

under

"arising

rL r P !n q r rrj l
r vi+
I
f 6r.la

l-ho

m^-'e-

s rhiecr

JsvJvve

case

treatles

has

511 U.S.

federal

fi-Led

case

lrr

See

may move to
28

See

haen

Congress.

only

basis

h..\rF

Am.,

state

in

lFp\/

fimited

or

of

court

no

party

a

court.

rIv!r(rq!!y

fcdcral

p,r\? .^

if

removes

defendant
r.iaf andrnr

in

Lo federal

exists,
state

Co.

Ins.

filed

Conversely,

f lr:l-

Constitution

have been brought

could

case

/^Feaq

rreu!

the

Life

Guardian

(L994) .

Feer

nrn fly. r
v l

ir - hsE' t \ , , r L L r v
m. ay
rr l

of

are courts

courts

federal

terms,

S

laws,
1331.
involrrino

or

These
a

W h e th e r
rler ermi

nod

federal

hrr

of

action.

where

Even

Iaw claims.

statute

whoffv

rh

Anderson,
Aetna

Heafth

I,
v.

for

nvnr m n + :ui n l - _ r L
v
.Lv l

J

Tax

Bd.

S. Cal .,

af

463 U.S.

c o m p la i n t

state-Iaw

the
//

ian

(2003).

I

Davila,

cause
Nat.

200,

v.

:-, 9-10
only

federal

of

action
Bank

One such statute

542 U.S.

f r,r

al leges

Beneflcial

1S

Caf.

case may be -removed "when a

nro-omnt

Inc.

r r

PrqrrrL.r

Tr,

question

federa-L

Franchise

displaces

539 U.S.

a

pla inriff's

a

the

nnmnlal-o

rnrrrrh

Lrrs

Vacatlon

Laborers

(1983) .

invofves

c r J , au r ^ t r r 9
! rq- laLrr--

cause

Constr,

state

case

is

ERISA.

(2004).

208

v.

As

the Supreme Courc has acknowfedged,

inLeresrs
nr:nq

F . R' q A

a.^,.-t a.]

f nnn rcee

of

anrl

henaFit

^n.l

rn i Fnrm

lhe

employee
bv
PJ

requirements

t-^

remedies/
sanctions,
Federal
courts,
The
e

Ln

beneficiarjeS

regufarory

nl:nq

n-nrr'r'lo

n-^l- eCL

12!ve.

participants

fheir

substanLive

F-

nrarzidlal

{,ar

benefir

c c -L- iLrT nT Y
I

rllf

JI

for

employee

.^^r^nri:16

and ready
access
to
purpose
of
ERISA is

ranrr'l:rnrrr

roni

ma

a' a
v v,c ! r

the
to

o , , 'n lr v y c ,co a.
sm y

plans.
benefit
To
end,
this
ERISA incfudes
pre-emption
expansive
provisionsr
which
are
inLended to
ensure rhaL emp-Loyee beneI iL p-Lan
regul-ation
woufd
excJ-usively
be
federal
a
concern.
Td.

at

2AB

(jnLernal

ERISA's civj-I

power'
comnlainl-

the

thaL
inf.

and

enforcernent provision,

S 1132 (a),

29 U.S.C.

ciLations

"has

'converLs

it

.)n6

wel f-p-Leaded

s,nj-

in.r

complaint

such
an
^

qucLaLions
S 502(a),

\extraordinarv,
ordj nary

f celer:

rufe.'

I

sLaLe

nl.aim

fnr

Conn.

om-Lrred).

codified

at

preemptive
common I aw
nr ,
y ur r ^ ^ c 6 c r
Purs

State

^f
vr

Dental

Ass'n

v.

Anthem Heafth

(11th

Cir.

481 u.S.

out

(citing

2009)

Davila.

the

test

Metro.

for

determininq

brought

have

whether

no

c1aim. "

ch ial

r"l

A.l.l'f

io-:llrr-

that

"are

rtn.la-

nf

supplement

t

remedy.'

Id.

(afterations
acquires

the

L

or

in

Tr\

L344

Taylor,

rLhrc rl r
' L

,

standlng

tha

1345.

. /\tn^

i6r

n^t-

However,
to brlnq

a

^.a6n^l-i^h

^i--^F^
r--fi
PorLrLrPa"LD

Blue

Cross Blue

Cir.

2001))

h:rro

coul d

nt:imc

be

broughL

\ rq.u. P r fr n l i n r r a |
tr
qc
uo

ttre ERISA civil
Davila,

t2)

ceneral1y,

a

o !c _ ea r : l lerrrr J
n r
Y r

Lhat

and

nl:inl-ifF'e

oc

,,.1n

(quoting

1346-47
original)

]

ri

l-aid

plainciff

502 (a) ;

1.24I (11th
r

States

.Law c.laj,ms are

Hobbs v.

cfaims

supp]ant [

derivat ive

aL

1236,

of

S

F.3d

ci:

nrorriclerq

lrer-:rrqe

at

v.

wheLher the

errhiarJ-

hanofi

F.3d

type

state

c

1346 (quoting

) 1 '
- ,' o

\O2i:l

"

not

he:l-hr:are

nol

€

are

at

Al.r

1 3 3 1,

United

crrnn^rl-

591

ne irher

are

under ERISA. ld.

Co.

the

under

.lrrl \/

State

rhey

of

whether

cfaim

lan:l

h e a - It h c a r e p r o v i d e r s
because

F.3d

Ins.

ERiSA: *(1)

its

other

Conn.

591

Life

Supreme Court

the

completely r preempted by
could

Inc.,

(t-987)).

58, 65-66

In

Pfans,

L

1

I

.

enforcement

542 U.S. at

healthcare

209)

provider

an ERISA cfaim

when a

' There are rwo
types ol preemption. CompLere p-reemplion and
defensj ve preempti on. WhiIe compfece preempr Lon affows a
defendant to remove a state 1aw complaint to federal court,
delensj ve preemprion "provides
only an affj rmarive defense
to state law claims and is not a basis for removaf .,, Ervast
v. Flexible
Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 100?, LOI2 n.6 (tfrn
Cir.
2003).

^ar1

i -

L is

ih:nl-

^r

Lohafi..i

'n

ri fil.l

a

F . RI q A

both.

is

lan.A

Inc.,

al leged only
H.cn

(9th

\r

preempred

(5th

mi aihr

he

Pr.)ttt.

r _L L D
_

t hey

AIOSC

rr

innmonr

af

(citing

131?

{noting

noL

v.

neaFqqA

L-r d_ri >

wFrF

indanan,darI

T,-.l

llorlrh

FLa.

/aitian

D'chin

2006)).

Court,s

As a

federa]

state

la$r claim.

See Marin

Tra.f

inn

qR1

fn

plaintiff's

state

having

been

that

nnl-

e u rvl J c ie L 1 Jr ^! a^

P)v.ll,

qA-1

cfaims

not

part

af

paid

Lone

whife

each

dcr o rmi na

hr.^\

Gen.

q/1

?.l

faw

has

Star

579 tr.3d 525, 537-32

f r.r

at

tr

patient);

from

Hea-lth Inc.,

l17

has

provider

C r o S S - f e f e f e n Ce d
r\/

provider

healLhcare

(acknowledging

n *l , . a n
r-

of

a

assignment

Aetna

cl:i-

assignment

nlrim

chLS

an

either

lru'

an

(S.D.

invoke

pJainLitf
to

< f . e l -o

healthcare

I21 4

recognized

wiLh

l\l,riahharhnaul

where

2009)
ard

aL

up

ljaw

trmni rF

despi ce

Cir.

afl -ee'ne-l

the

an independent

OBIGYN Assocs.

end

circumstances,

2d 1269,
may

pursuant

charges

:<q

td.

i ndananrlanf

I n.-

Supp.

2009)

l-ioh

AppeaLs has

i^.lonandahf

M/1.locl-,,\ d'

Cir.

may

if

jurisdicLion

quest Lon

u'ri

benefirs.

: n

these

parLy

a

: n ^

lr h.'11rn

459 E.

resufL,

: i m

:n

Haa

r

CourL oI

irrelevant

nnlrr

(harirJan

.l

nne

provider

Under

Id.

benefits
e1

Circuit

healthca re

^aairrnF.l

ci

1241) .

at

The Eleventh
tnar

r\r

ohJ ,:i n medi cal

21 6 F.3d

Hobbs,

.

ofLe r

.-^rr.\-r

l-.

.

and

n

A'i

IJlaLr

Hq y, 'LsrrL ,

nraamntir.\r|

F r:nni

provider

ca>n

hoc:rreo

qLdmh

Healthcare,
rr.

Cent,

Fund, 538 F.3d 594,

but

only

Valley

States

al Ieged

Hosp.,

Inc.

could

Local

In

this

^yrTr6n

case.

if-

based on
provide

^^r^15;-t-

medical

hpqo

aoainsr

the
:n\/

: I l cner i6n

llef endanl

,an\/

L^rri ttFn

to

the

^ q q i . t n r n l Fi lnr fr g ,
l l
l

l-,,

EDrc^

Plaintiff's

request

that

:ttona

this

On

ett

CIaim

a

Lhis

case.

l4l-

(2005).

is

denied.

v

of

LhiS

the

case be

MarLin

v.

Therefore,

Frankljn

agreement- to

must

i -s,rre:l

h:c

ERISA

i m n l i r -Le u o .tle s
er

rrLrl|

rr

r

i .ra

l6\,^hr-

claim

is

- . r r i s' .. lui r.u u i n n
-r
lq'

gtrant

concludes

no

mta Jr r Lr A rvr eF
rL u
r q

nnt

t:r-ks

the

At

nenLion

, . - . i m ^ 1 a r -L aI l] .
L

COUrt

Court

' \,,rr

pf ai-ntif f , s

State

Court

that

plaintiff

of

fees because Defendant had an

bas is"

that

f

Clain

insureds.

an

remanded to

attorneys'

the

law

Pl-aintif f 's

whether

BeCaUSe

-easonab_Le

Pascack

has carefuJly

ejcher

har-nmaa

to

ivel

ERISA,

Reimbursement

Slate

of

Dl:in-rf

is

"obior:f

claim) ;

a

!

LhaC

However, the Court

entitled

'

breach

Chatham County.
not

under

P-LajntiFf

does Plainriff

r ^ r hi n h

claim,

law

Defendant's

to

TL.arF.^rF

determination

nroann-an

over

-

thaL

purporLed

complainc

claim

no

2004).

i^

services

(finding

2008)

bring

sLate

clear

is

Defendant's

jn

point

it

Cir.

4 6 4 A U F C WW e l f a r e

3BB E.3d 393 (3d Cir.

Plan,

(7th

independenL
v.

Bd. HeaLth & Welfare

Joint

597-98

where plainuiff

preemption

nr

v.

Inc.

f or

aLrernt

C a pi , C a , l C o r p . ,
portion

of

,rq

to

rFr,ro\ra

545 U.S.

PLaintiff's

132,

motion

coNcrusroN
For

the

Remand and for
and DENIED IN
the
ra^,,a<l-

State
€^-

foregoing

reasons I

Payment of

Costs

PART. As a result,

Court

of

attorneys'

(Doc. B) is
this

s o O R D E R E D h . : s2 7 l \ a y
c

Motion

to

GRAIiITED
IN PART

case

Chathaln County,
fees is

's

P-laintiff

is

Georgia.

REMAI,IDED
to
Pfaintifff

s

DENIED.

of March 2018.

f^lTT I T AM

r|

Mn ^PF

rD

U N I T E D S T A T E SD I S T R ] C T C O U R T
SOUTHERN ISTRICT OF GEORG]A
D