Center For Restorative Breast Surgery, L.L.C. et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana et al

Filing 461

ORDER denying 443 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CENTER FOR RESTORATIVE
BREAST SURGERY, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-806

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (5)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand 110 of their claims. 1
Center for Restorative Breast Surgery, L.L.C. and St. Charles Surgical Hospital
(“Plaintiffs”) filed this action in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana, on
April 6, 2010. 2 It was removed from state court on April 12, 2011, partly on the basis of
preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 3
Plaintiffs filed this motion to remand 110 of the 1,238 claims on October 5, 2015. 4
Plaintiffs assert that the claims are distinct and independent and have no basis in ERISA
or other federal law. 5 They also argue that there is no basis for exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over these claims. 6 Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (“Defendant”) filed a response in opposition on
October 13, 2015, arguing that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law
claims. 7 Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of its motion to remand on October 27, 2015. 8

R. Doc. 443.
R. Doc. 1-1.
3 R. Doc. 1.
4 R. Doc. 443.
5 See R. Doc. 443-1 at 3.
6 Id.
7 R. Doc. 448.
8 R. Doc. 453.
1

2

1

In any civil action over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over all other state-law claims “that are so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy.” 9
Plaintiffs’ state-law claims arise from the same set of facts as the 1,128 claims that
have a basis in federal law. Plaintiffs argue that the state-law claims “merely share a
factual background” with the federal claims. In their Fifth Amended Complaint, however,
Plaintiffs allege with respect to all claims identical facts about the verifications of benefits,
the process of appeals of adverse benefit determinations, and contact with Defendant
about the reimbursements available for out-of-network providers. 10 Plaintiffs also fail to
point to any significant differences between the ERISA and non-ERISA plans. While
Plaintiffs argue that the state-law claims involve witnesses who will “testify as to unique
conversations” that are “distinct as to each claim,” 11 the Court finds that the ERISA claims
and the state-law claims arise out of a series of transactions that are similar and logically
related. Thus, the evidence likely will not substantially differ between the two categories
of claims. 12 Therefore, remanding the 110 claims would not be in the interest of judicial
economy.
As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[i]f the plaintiff moves to remand, all the
defendant has to do is demonstrate a substantial federal claim, e.g., one completely
preempted by ERISA, and the court may not remand. Once the court has proper removal
jurisdiction over a federal claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
See R. Doc. 308 at ¶¶ 94–122.
11 R. Doc. 453 at 2.
12 See Paragon Office Servs., LLC v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., Inc., 2012 WL 4442368, at *3 (N.D. Tex.
Sept. 26, 2012).
9

10

2

claims, . . . even if it dismisses or otherwise disposes of the federal claim or claims.” 13 The
Court finds that the 110 claims Plaintiffs seek to remand are so related to, and arise out of
the same set of operative facts as, the other 1,128 claims in this case that they form part
of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court can “comfortably exercise
supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state-law claims. 14
In light of the foregoing reasoning, the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of November, 2015.
___________ __ _________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1999).
Cardiovascular Specialty Care Ctr. Of Baton Rouge, LLC v. United HealthCare of Louisiana, Inc., 2015
WL 952121, at *4 (M.D. La. Mar. 4, 2015).

13

14

3