Integranet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 11 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-20659,18-20659 |
| Citation | 945 F.3d 232 |
| Parties | INTEGRANET PHYSICIAN RESOURCE, INCORPORATED, doing business as IntegraNet Health, Plaintiff–Appellant v. TEXAS INDEPENDENT PROVIDERS, L.L.C. ; Robert Vincent Roth; Carlos J. Palacios, Medical Doctor, Defendants–Appellees IntegraNet Physician Resource, Incorporated, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Robert Vincent Roth, Defendant–Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Blair H. Burnside, Anderson Burnside, P.L.L.C., Logan E. Johnson, Marc S. Tabolsky, Varant Yegparian, Schiffer Hicks & Johnson, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael Steven Burg, Katy, TX, Roy Tate Young, Tate Young Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellees.
Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
IntegraNet sued a competitor and its two owners (one of whom was a former IntegraNet employee) in state court. They removed to federal court. Then IntegraNet sued the former-employee owner in state court for another claim. And the owner again removed. The district court consolidated the cases. The so-called consolidation order sua sponte barred IntegraNet from filing another case against Appellees without the judge’s permission. On appeal, IntegraNet argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction and that consolidation was improper, as was the sua sponte pre-filing injunction.
We agree with IntegraNet. We reverse the consolidation order, vacate the injunction, and remand both claims with instructions to the district court to remand the Texas state law claims to the Texas state court from which the cases were removed.
IntegraNet is a Texas independent physician association (IPA), a network of independent physicians who’ve banded together to reduce overhead costs and negotiate contracts with payers. IntegraNet employed Robert Vincent Roth as Vice President of Contracting and Director of Financial Analytics. A big part of Roth’s job was to collect money owed to IntegraNet from insurers. Roth allegedly dropped the ball. In 2014 he sought recovery of only $337,784 of roughly $4.3 million owed to IntegraNet by an insurer. IntegraNet asserts that Roth knew about the underreporting prior to the claim deadline and failed to correct it. Roth quit IntegraNet that same year. About three years later, IntegraNet supposedly caught the mistake, but managed to collect only around $550,000 of the roughly $4.3 million. So IntegraNet is coming after Roth for the rest.
After Roth quit IntegraNet in 2014, he started a competitor IPA called Texas Independent Providers (TIP). TIP serves patients through Medicare Advantage plans. Roth and his partner, Dr. Carlos Palacios, are the principal owners. IntegraNet says that Roth, Palacios, and TIP conspired to harm IntegraNet’s business, improperly prying physicians and insurers away from IntegraNet. For example, IntegraNet points to the insurer WellCare (a now-dismissed defendant). WellCare was an IntegraNet insurer, but withdrew in 2018.1 WellCare notified its members of the termination with IntegraNet. The parties agree that federal regulations and the contract between IntegraNet and WellCare required IntegraNet to abstain from interfering with patient enrollment upon WellCare’s termination of the contract.2 Put differently, IntegraNet was not supposed to pressure WellCare enrollees to switch insurance plans. IntegraNet insists it didn’t.
But in April 2018, WellCare sent cease-and-desist letters to IntegraNet and some of its providers. The letters state that WellCare received "a complaint relating to unsolicited contacts with one or more of [the doctors’] patients who are Medicare-eligible beneficiaries." IntegraNet says these letters were "thinly-veiled threats" to its doctor-members motivated by the desire for them to leave IntegraNet for another IPA—like TIP—or to contract directly with WellCare. IntegraNet also alleges that, around the same time, many of its doctor-members received marketing materials from TIP touting the benefits of their membership. These materials supposedly contain mischaracterizations about IntegraNet "that only Roth would have the knowledge to make." Appellees Roth and Palacios co-own TIP. Palacios is also a Medical Director at WellCare. IntegraNet believes that WellCare acted in concert with TIP, Roth, and Palacios.
IntegraNet filed two suits in state court. Suit #1 was against TIP, Roth, Palacios, and WellCare for interfering with IntegraNet’s business (TIP lawsuit ). Suit #2 was against Roth alone for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence (Roth lawsuit ). But WellCare and Roth removed to federal court. Here’s the timeline:
In this appeal, we review the interlocutory order consolidating the two cases and the denial of the motions to remand.
The preliminary issue is whether we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of this interlocutory order consolidating the two cases. Appellees argue that we lack jurisdiction. They are mistaken. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we may review interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court ...." The relevant question is whether the district court’s order amounted to an injunction. The order forbade IntegraNet from "fil[ing] another case against the defendants on the facts in this action without court’s permission."
We have previously held that restrictions similar to those imposed by the district court’s order constitute an order granting an injunction under § 1292(a)(1).3 Baum , for example, had to do with a similar command from the same district judge as here: The plaintiff couldn’t "fil[e] claims, directly or indirectly, in courts or with agencies in the state of Texas without the express written permission of Judge Lynn N. Hughes."4 We determined that the command was an injunction, and thus jurisdiction existed under § 1292(a)(1).5
And in our 2010 Qureshi decision, we considered a similarly worded dismissal order from the same judge: "Because of his persistent abuse of the judicial process, [plaintiff] may not file papers in Texas federal courts without written permission of Judge Lynn N. Hughes."6 We did not explain why the order constituted an injunction. But for taxonomical purposes, the bottom line is that the court cited Baum and called the order a "pre-filing injunction."7
Returning to this case, the "Order of Consolidation" bars IntegraNet from filing "another case against the defendants on the facts in this action without court’s permission." Under Baum , this command not to sue qualifies as an injunction, which is immediately appealable. So we have jurisdiction to review the order.
Appellees contend the order isn’t an injunction because the district court merely ordered the consolidation of two cases, as its title—"Order of Consolidation"—suggests. But the order’s title is not dispositive.8 Rather, "[i]n determining what is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), courts look not to terminology, but to the substantial effect of the order made."9 Here, like in Baum and Qureshi , the district court’s order prevents a party from filing future lawsuits without that judge’s permission—meaning it’s a pre-filing injunction. Thus, we have jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) to review the order.
As such, we also have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of IntegraNet’s motion to remand to state court. An order denying a motion to remand standing alone would not be appealable.10 But, where there’s an independent basis for jurisdiction, we must review the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuits.11 Here, the district court’s pre-filing injunction provides the requisite, independent basis for review under § 1292(a)(1).
When a district court remands (or denies remand) based on supplemental jurisdiction, we review for abuse of discretion.12 And when a district court grants or denies an injunction, we review that for abuse of discretion too—though we review underlying questions of law de novo.13
A court must have jurisdiction to decide a case.14 So we turn to the threshold inquiry of whether the district court had jurisdiction over the TIP and Roth lawsuits .15 By statute, federal courts have original jurisdiction over federal-question and diversity cases.16 They can also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related to claims within [federal-question or diversity cases] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution."17
By statute, federal courts also have removal jurisdiction in some cases originally filed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smith
...Cir. 2010) (citing Webster's Second in interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 1502(2), enacted 2005); IntegraNet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C. , 945 F.3d 232, 239 & n.21 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Webster's Second in interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), as amended 1996), overruled on......
-
Neal v. Ameron Int'l Corp.
...only negligence claims could not be removed under the federal officer removal statute. See IntegraNet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C. , 945 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Zeringue v. Crane Co. , 846 F.3d......
-
Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
...v. Crane Co. , 846 F.3d 785, 793–94 (5th Cir. 2017) ; Legendre , 885 F.3d at 400–403 ; see also IntegraNet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C. , 945 F.3d 232, 240 4 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Schexnayder v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , No. CV 19-11773, 2020 WL 114136, at *2 (E.D. La.......
-
Dirauf v. Berger
...lack of activity in federal court, and the significant activity in state court. See, e.g., IntegraNet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C., 945 F.3d 232, 241-42 (5th Cir. 2019), overruled on other grounds by Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2020......