DAVITA INC. v. ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., No. 4:2017cv00131 - Document 18 (S.D. Ga. 2018)

Court Description: 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).

Download PDF
DAVITA INC. v. ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. Doc. 18 fI r !iL E tU r n I C^OUR OISTRICT U.S. 0l\1 colfriiAbdilAli DrsrRrcr srArEs rN rHE rrNrrED DrsrRrcr oF GEolfrmiR?7 pH rHE sourHERN 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. HEALTH ' ,/CANDLER S T . J O S E P HS 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, Inc''s ( D o c' is Motion to For the B' ) PART G R A N T E DI N case REI'IAI{DEDto 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 Dockets.Justia.co Defendant's ear\'i ^Ac plaintj r- ulL tf thaL h insureds, -l lIvL Plainfiff obl-garions under damages of 52,044,505.98 n,,rc,r.nr to federaf claims eon,r ri trr 28 U.S,C. of A^f fail rhc the suit in CompI. ) In Lhe its breached A fu.II remit seeks sracutory trA q rhic f-.]rrrr l.r on )() ( " E F . r S A ") , 1 . 9 14 fifed plus a^mnl,ainj- Employee \ Plaintiff 7-d-T based 1n-l1 lLlL Lng Lo 9 11 4 . ) employee, qlq /\ r vI .' l (Id. , ( A S 1331, under. covered principal, r- r: romorrcd alle.'es Defendant by in n Dlain-i.f Plaintiff (Td. services. L^l- r.r-^L,sLwEcrl r.1- a that contracc the Lhese pursuant r:-r breach, cLaimS a to those c19 rscrrrstiL rrr'l ChaLham County. lor limelrr ra-l- for schedule tlll 5-B,r ^^nr payment nef ,.ndrnj- fee services alleged r:ombl^ini- ..rnl- -c: {-t-a Cou.rt of the (ld. Parv SraLe inrsrocr : covered Based on this rhe with h! )r r D e f e n d_a n t . 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 plan benef lt to PLaintifI, ERISA or complaint a state Law cfaim agreement between subject Lo ERISA. it stare in Remand/ P,aintitI this it argues for r nr.l (Doc. n6 breach f an B at can efecL beLween bringing I aw. has and case to /'15. the f 4-8. ) purposefu i I y avoid that a iL of the any h^f According claim under drafted former. has (Id. ) rhe fn response, Defendant removable because generally under ERISA. (Doc. 15 at have could Plaintiff case this that argues hrnrrnhl- iI a is ,^lrim B-12.) AIiIAI,YS I S STANDARDOF REVIEW general In irrricdint in by hear to authorized Kokkonen v. Guardian (L994) . cases For first 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 lrr 511 U.S. 375 (1lth remand the 1447 (c) . nct lhe iams Will 2001). T-- U.S.C. aq .-aqeq case When a court, the exislence Best v. One type of jurisdiclion Constitution, 28 matter subiect have original the States." reforred Cir. 2B U'S.C. sLate nrorri i ' r r I s c lr r : t i n q , 1319 uhe originaf court. S of a defendant if may move to courls United Am., court, in haen See for U.S.C. h..\rF Congress. only basis hrrrden under "arising rL rI Pr !nv qi r+ rrj l f 6r.la l-ho m^-'e- s rhiecr JsvJvve case treatles has lFp\/ fimited or federal fi-Led case lrr state in 28 See 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 /^Feaq rreu! the Life -rav renove rl'e raLLer case Feer n v rnl fly. r ir -r h . ra vy rLL r sE l 't \ , , m 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 nnmnlal-o rnrrrrh Anderson, Aetna for vnvnr m . Ln v +l :ui n l -- _ r L J Tax Bd. S. Cal ., af 463 U.S. c o m p la i n t I, 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 v. r r PrqrrrL.r Tr, question federa-L Franchise displaces Inc. a pla inriff's a the 539 U.S. Heafth Lrrs Vacatlon Laborers (1983) . invofves - ul ra ^L tr rr r- 9!c r Jr ,q a 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 nI T Y rllf JI for employee .^^r^nri:16 and ready access to purpose of ERISA is ranrr'l:rnrrr roni ma va v' ,ca! r the to so ,m, 'nylr v ya c. ,co - 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 yn ur r, r ^ ^Pcu6r cs r State ^v fr 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 L the in 1 3 3 1, v. F.3d type or Tr\ L344 Taylor, rLh' rcL rl r , 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. Pt rr fr n l i n r r a | qc uo ttre ERISA civil Davila, t2) ceneral1y, a o c n a r : l lerrrr J Y!r_er 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 United wheLher the errhiarJ- hanofi lrer-:rrqe at Co. c 1346 (quoting 1 ' -) ,' o \O2i:l " not he:l-hr:are nol € are at Al.r Ins. crrnn^rl- 591 ne irher are under ERISA. ld. F.3d state under .lrrl \/ State rhey 591 the whether cfaim lan:l h e a - It h c a r e p r o v i d e r s because of ERiSA: *(1) its other Conn. 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 la$r claim. See Marin inn qR1 fn plaintiff's state having been that qA-1 cfaims not part af paid Lone whife each dcr o rmi na nnl- e J ur rvl J^ c! ieaL^ 1 - P)v.ll, Gen. Star 579 tr.3d 525, 537-32 f r.r hr.^\ faw has q/1 ?.l patient); from Hea-lth Inc., at tr As a federa] state Tra.f l17 has provider C r o S S - f e f e f e n Ce d r\/ provider healLhcare (acknowledging n l an 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 nl l Fl i lnl r fr g , 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 -Lee ur o .tle s rrLrl| rr r i .ra l6\,^hr- claim is - . r r i s' .. lui r.u- ur i n n lq' gtrant concludes no L ArrF m r L ta u Jr r rrq v e nnt t:r-ks the At nenLion , . - . i m ^ 1 a r -L aL I 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 so ORDERED c h . : s2 7 l \ a y Motion to GRAIiITEDIN 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 DISTRICT OF GEORG]A

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.