Hammerman and Gainer, Inc. v. Stratacare, Inc.

Filing 125

MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Elizabeth E Foote: MISCELLANEOUS HEARING/Oral Argument held on 5/10/2011; 106 Motion for Preliminary Injunction DENIED. Finding that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Member Case 11-cv-0026, the Court orally REMANDED civil action 11-cv-0026 to the 27th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana. (Court Reporter: Barbara Simpson) (crt,Dauterive, C)

MINUTES [3:10]
___
May 11, 2011

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

HAMMERMAN & GAINER, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1786

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

STRATACARE, INC.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES

The Court held Oral Argument on the Motion for Injunctive Relief [Record
Document 106] filed by Third-Party Defendant BestComp, Inc. (“BestComp”).
BestComp originally sought to enjoin the 27th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana in two state court proceedings: George Raymond Williams, Orthopedic
Surgery, A Professional Medical LLC v. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., et al., No. 11-1387B; and George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, A Professional Medical,
LLC v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc., No. 09-C-5244-C. Since the filing of the
Motion for Injunctive Relief, the second suit, 09-C-5244-C, has been removed to federal
court and is pending as Docket number 11-cv-686 in the Western District of Louisiana.
BestComp also seeks to enjoin the “parties” from filing “additional suits in federal or
state court related to the claims currently pending in these consolidated cases.”
Following argument by the parties, the Court orally DENIED BestComp’s Motion
for Injunctive Relief [Record Document 106] and gave detailed reasons on the record.

At the outset, the Court noted that there are three consolidated cases currently
before the Court: docket numbers 09-cv-1786, 09-cv-1852, and 11-cv-26. BestComp is
a third party defendant in 09-cv-1786 and 11-cv-26, but not a party in 09-cv-1852.
Docket numbers 09-cv-1786 and 09-cv-1852 are suits for declaratory judgment filed by
Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. (“Hammerman & Gainer”). Docket number 11-cv-26 is a
putative class action against Hammerman & Gainer and other defendants.
First, the Court held that it does not have jurisdiction over the consolidated
member case 11-cv-26. The Court found that, even if the Court had original jurisdiction
over the class action in 11-cv-26, BestComp, as a third-party defendant to the class
action, could not remove 11-cv-26 under 28 U.S.C. § 1453. Further, the Court found
that, as the Plaintiff defined the class, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over
the class action in 11-cv-26 pursuant to the “home state exception” of 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(4). Finding that the Court does not have jurisdiction over 11-cv-26, the Court
orally REMANDED civil action 11-cv-26 to the 27th Judicial District Court in and for the
Parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana.
Next, the Court held that BestComp’s requested injunction of the state court
proceedings in George Raymond Williams, Orthopedic Surgery, A Professional Medical
LLC v. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., et al., 27th Judicial District Court, No. 11-1387-B, is
barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Without jurisdiction over 11-cv-26,
the Court found that BestComp’s requested injunction of civil action No. 11-1387-B
would not fall into an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and thus that an injunction of the
state court proceedings is improper.

The Court also held that BestComp has not shown a basis for an injunction of
George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, A Professional Medical, LLC v.
SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc., 11-cv-686, currently before Judge Melancon, District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Since the time BestComp requested
injunctive relief, the case had been removed from state court to federal court. With the
removal of the case to federal court, BestComp’s requested relief is moot.
Further, the Court found that BestComp has not shown that it would be harmed
absent the requested injunction of the ongoing proceedings. If the proposed
settlement and class certification in civil action No. 11-1387-B is approved by the state
court, there would be a shuffling of the parties-in-interest as to the claim derivatively
asserted against BestComp, but the claims against and defenses to BestComp would
remain unchanged. BestComp is not a party to the settlement.
Finally, the Court held that BestComp had not presented sufficient evidence of
vexatious filings or other harassing actions by the other parties to this matter. An
injunction of the other parties to prevent them from filing additional lawsuits related to
the claims in this matter is inappropriate and therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.