Decatur Hospital Authority v. Aetna Health Inc
Filing
18
Memorandum Opinion and Order re 7 Motion to Remand filed by Decatur Hospital Authority..the action is remanded to the state court from which it was removed. cy to District Court Wise Co, TX 271st Judicial District. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 2/19/2016) (wrb)
tr.S. DlSTfliCT COl RT
NOlHIICRi\ DiST'l!CT OF TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRifT COURT fiL[f)
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T XAS
~··-.-----.~
FORT WORTH DIVISION
~
fEB I 9 2016 I
DECATUR HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
D/B/A WISE REGIONAL HEALTH
SYSTEM,
Plaintiff,
----·-··----~
§
§
§
Cf FRK, U.S. DlST!UCT COUH
ny _ _-:
_.. .,. . __ - - - - ···-·~_!~~~-'~.~!-~~:."_. . .-,~~-
§
§
§
vs.
§
§
AETNA HEALTH INC.,
.~.-- -~
§
§
§
Defendant.
NO. 4:15-CV-922-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion to remand filed by
plaintiff, Decatur Hospital Authority d/b/a Wise Regional Health
System, and the response of defendant, Aetna Health Inc. Having
considered plaintiff's motion, defendant's response, plaintiff's
reply and supplemental appendix, the record, and applicable
authorities, the court concludes that such motion should be
granted.
I.
Background
A.
Plaintiff's State Court Pleading
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 24, 2015, by filing
an original petition in the District Court of Wise County, Texas,
271st Judicial District. Plaintiff claims that defendant did not
timely pay certain claims as required by law.
B.
The Removal to This Court
On December 4, 2015, defendant removed this action alleging
that this court has subject matter jurisdiction by reason of
federal question under 28 U.S.C.
§
1331. The basis for federal
question jurisdiction is that plaintiff's claims are completely
preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). In addition, defendant argues that the court has
jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employee Health Benefits
Act
C.
("FEHBA") and the Federal Officer Removal Statute.
The Motion to Remand
Plaintiff contends that removal is inappropriate, because
(1) the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
action based on plaintiff's claims being completely preempted by
ERISA;
(2) defendant is not entitled to Federal Officer Removal
jurisdiction; and (3) defendant did not timely remove the action.
II.
Legal Principles of Removal
Under 28 U.S.C.
§
1441(a), a defendant may remove to federal
court any state court action of which the federal district court
would have original jurisdiction. 1 "The removing party bears the
1
The removal statute provides, in pertinent part, that: [A]ny civil action brought in a State court
of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
(continued ... )
2
burden of showing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists
and that removal was proper." Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas.
Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723
(5th Cir. 2002)
(citations omitted).
"Moreover, because the effect of removal is to deprive the state
court of an action properly before it, removal raises significant
federalism concerns .
. which mandate strict construction of
the removal statute." Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch.
Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1995). Any doubts about
whether removal jurisdiction is proper must therefore be resolved
against the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown &
Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000).
Removing Defendants assert federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1331. Under
§
1331, this court has
"original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
§
1331. Removing Defendants allege federal question jurisdiction
arising under ERISA, FEHBA, and the Federal Officer Removal
Statute.
1
( .••
continued)
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 144l(a) (emphasis added).
3
III.
Analysis
Both parties make persuasive arguments on the issue of
whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, the
court has decided that it does not need to resolve that issue.
The court has concluded that even if subject matter jurisdiction
exists, the action should be remanded because defendant did not
timely remove it.
Section 1446(b} of Title 28 of the United States Code
requires that "notice of removal shall be filed within 30 days
after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of the initial
pleading setting forth the claims for relief upon which [the]
action . . . is based" or where removal is not proper based on
the initial pleading but the action later becomes removable,
"a
notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by
the defendant . . . of a copy of an amended pleading, motion,
order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that
the case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C.
§
1446 (b) .
Defendant, which was served with plaintiff's state court
pleading on June 30, 2015, argues that it is within the thirtyday time period for removal because plaintiff first put it on
4
notice of the facts that it contends caused this action to be
removable through answers to interrogatories, which confirmed for
the first time that the claims forming the basis of this action
included claims based on ERISA and FEHBA. Doc. 2 1 at 2-3; Ex. C.
The court disagrees. On May 27, 2015, plaintiff sent a pre-suit
notice to defendant regarding the claims at issue in this action.
Doc. 1 Ex. Bat 3; Doc. 7 at 1-2. Plaintiff's state court
pleading explicitly references the May 27, 2015 pre-suit notice
and states in reference to the notice that
~[t]he
Hospital has
provided a list of the claims at issue to Aetna's counsel prior
to the filing of this Petition." Doc. 1 Ex. Bat 3.
The answers to the interrogatories upon which defendant is
basing the timeliness of the removal in relevant part state that
the claims at issue are listed in ~the spreadsheet served on its
counsel on or about June 22, 2015." Doc. 10 Ex. A-2 at A0009. The
May 27, 2015 pre-suit notice directed defendant to contact
~a
counsel for plaintiff to provide
detailed list of claims at
issue . . . " Doc. 17 at Ex. A-1 Supp. App. 3. On June 19, 2015,
counsel for defendant contacted counsel for plaintiff asking for
~the
claims data for the medical claims referenced in your letter
to Aetna of May 27, 2015." Doc. 17 at Ex. A-2 Supp. App. 6. On
2
The "Doc. _" references are to the numbers assigned to the referenced documents on the
docket ofthis case, No. 4:15-CV-922-A.
5
June 22, 2015, counsel for plaintiff responded with the claims
list mentioned in the May 27, 2015 pre-suit notice. Doc. 17 at
Ex. A-2 Supp. App. 6. In addition, the pre-suit notice mentions
the possibility that some of the claims may deal with a payment
arrangement that included ERISA and FEHBA. Doc. 17 at Ex. A-1
Supp. App. 3.
The court is satisfied that the reference in plaintiff's
state court pleading to the May 27, 2015 pre-suit notice and the
list of claims provided to counsel for defendant, put defendant
on notice of the claims at issue in this action. The answers to
the interrogatories provided defendant with no new information
upon which it could base a claim to a right to timely remove this
action. Thus, defendant has failed to establish that this action
was timely removed.
IV.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that the above-captioned action be, and is
hereby, remanded to the state court from which it was removed .
./l
SIGNED February 19, 2016.
/.I
/
Judge
6
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?