Multiplan, Inc. et al v. Holland et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 52 Motion to Dismiss; denying 54 Motion to Seal Document. See Order for more details. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 11/18/14 (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MULTIPLAN, INC., and PRIVATE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
CAUSE NO. 1:14CV315-LG-RHW

STEVEN W. HOLLAND, doing business as
Physical Therapy Clinic of Gulfport, and
KEVIN BARRETT, doing business as Quest
Financial Recovery Services

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING STEVEN HOLLAND’S MOTION
TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
BEFORE THE COURT are the Motion [52] to Dismiss Case Based on
Perjury, Fraud Upon the Court, and Abuse of Process filed by Steven W. Holland
and the Motion [54] to Seal Holland’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum filed by
Multiplan, Inc. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record in this
matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Holland’s Motion to Dismiss
and Multiplan’s Motion to Seal should be denied.
DISCUSSION
I. Holland’s Motion to Dismiss
In his Motion to Dismiss, Holland alleges that counsel for Multiplan
committed perjury by alleging in a Verified Complaint that Holland sent a
Commercial Affidavit to Multiplan dated January 26, 2014. The context of the
allegation in the Verified Complaint is as follows:
38. Thereafter, Quest Financial Recovery Services (“Quest”), as
Holland’s disclosed agent, sent correspondence to Plaintiffs requesting
payment for disputed workers’ compensation claims submitted by
Holland for services rendered according to the Agreement.

39. Specifically, Holland sent a “Commercial Affidavit” . . . to
[Multiplan] dated January 26, 2014.
40. The Commercial Affidavit included a statement that Quest was
the authorized agent of Holland, and thus was expressly authorized to
act on Holland’s behalf.
(Verified Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1) (footnote omitted).
“Under the law of agency, ‘a principal is bound by the actions of its agent
within the scope of that agent’s real or apparent authority.’” Andrew Jackson Life
Ins. Co., v. Williams, 566 So. 2d 1172, 1180 (Miss. 1990) (quoting Ford v. Lamar
Life Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 880, 888 (Miss. 1987)). In other words, the acts of an agent
may be imputed to the agent’s principal.1
The Verified Complaint clearly alleged that Holland sent the Commercial
Affidavit by and through his authorized agent, Quest. In fact, the Commercial
Affidavit itself provided that Quest was Holland’s authorized agent. As a result,
there is no factual support for Holland’s allegation that counsel for Multiplan
committed perjury or any other form of misconduct. Holland’s Motion to Dismiss is
denied.
II. Multiplan’s Motion to Seal
Multiplan asks the Court to Seal Holland’s Motion to Dismiss and supporting
Memorandum due to the serious and unsupported allegations contained therein.
The Court is unable to seal the pleadings on sole basis of unsupported allegations
raised by Motion.

1

The issue of whether Holland should actually be held liable for the actions
of Quest will be determined by the Court at a later time.
-2-

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [52]
to Dismiss Case Based on Perjury, Fraud Upon the Court, and Abuse of Process
filed by Steven W. Holland is DENIED. In addition, Mr. Holland is admonished to
carefully consider the making or publishing of future unfounded allegations of
misconduct. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Holland is proceeding pro se, he
should familiarize himself with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
regarding representations to the Court. Any “pleading, written motion, or other
paper... presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation”, may be subject to appropriate
sanctions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c).
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [54] to
Seal Holland’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum filed by Multiplan, Inc., is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of November, 2014.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-