United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
HEALTHSPRING LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
TEXAS HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff HealthSpring Life & Health
Insurance Company, Inc.'s (“HealthSpring”)
Emergency Motion to Remand (Dkt. #6). After reviewing the
relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds the motion
should be granted.
is a Texas corporation that offers “Medicare Advantage
Plans.” In May 2013, HealthSpring and Defendant
Texas Health Management, LLC (“THM”) entered into
an agreement for THM to provide in-home medical services to
HealthSpring's Medicare Advantage Members in Texas. In
pertinent part, the agreement required THM to provide
HealthSpring with completed 360 Comprehensive Assessments
Forms (“360 Forms”), which contained important
medical information regarding HealthSpring's Medicare
January 30, 2017, THM submitted a demand for arbitration
(“Arbitration Demand”), which, among other
things, sought fees allegedly owed to them for services THM
provided to HealthSpring. Additionally, THM submitted an
application for emergency measures of protection, which
sought an equitable decree ordering HealthSpring to pay the
invoices. The emergency arbitrator declined to award THM such
emergency relief and referred the matter to a panel of three
arbitrators (the “Tribunal”) for further
proceedings. On February 21, 2017, THM amended its original
Arbitration Demand to include, in pertinent part, a claim
under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
discovery, in connection with its Sherman Act claim, THM
sought copies of certain contracts between HealthSpring and
THM's competitors. On June 16, 2017, the Discovery Master
and Chair of the Tribunal ordered HealthSpring to produce
such contracts, but allowed HealthSpring the ability to
redact “commercially sensitive terms.” As such,
HealthSpring produced such contracts in redacted form. On
August 7, 2017, HealthSpring requested leave to file a motion
for summary disposition on THM's Sherman Act claim. In
response to HealthSpring's request, THM implored the
Tribunal to reconsider its ruling that allowed HealthSpring
to produce the subject contracts in redacted form. The
Tribunal, declining to compel HealthSpring to produce the
contacts in unredacted form, set an evidentiary hearing for
THM to produce evidence in support of its Sherman Act claim.
Prior to the hearing, THM withdrew its Sherman Act claim
because it did not believe, with the evidence available, it
could satisfy its burden of proof.
October and November 2017, the Tribunal held several
evidentiary hearings on the remaining claims. Throughout this
time, HealthSpring requested the Tribunal to enter an interim
order requiring THM to turn over unreturned 360 Forms in
THM's possession. On December 14, 2017, the Tribunal
issued an order (“Order No. 6”) requiring THM to
return all undelivered 360 Forms to HealthSpring. Due to
THM's failure to comply with the order, on January 9,
2018, HealthSpring filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration
Order and for Injunctive Relief, in addition to, an
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary
Injunction to Enforce Arbitration Order in the 219th Judicial
District Court of Collin County, Texas.
January 12, 2018, the state district court granted a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against THM
and ordered THM to comply with the Tribunal's Order No.
6. On January 26, 2018, the state district court converted
the TRO into a temporary injunction and confirmed Order No.
6. THM ultimately failed to comply with the order. On March
14, 2018, the Tribunal rendered its Final Award, which denied
all of THM's claims against HealthSpring. On March 20,
2018, HealthSpring filed an Motion to File Under Seal
requesting that the state district court file the
Tribunal's Final Award under seal.
April 6, 2018, THM filed its Notice of Removal on the basis
of federal question jurisdiction (Dkt. #1). On April 11,
2018, HealthSpring filed an Emergency Motion to
Remand(Dkt. #6). On April 24, 2018, THM filed its
response (Dkt. #9). On May 1, 2018, HealthSpring filed its
reply (Dkt. #10).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994)). “Only state court actions that
originally could have been filed in federal court may be
removed to federal court by the defendant.”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
(1987) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). “In an action
that has been removed to federal court, a district court is
required to remand the case to state court if, at any time
before final judgment, it determines that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.” Humphrey v. Tex. Gas
Serv., No. 1:14-CV-485, 2014 WL 12687831, at *2 (E.D.
Tex. Dec. 11, 2014) (citations omitted). The Court
“must presume that a suit lies outside [its] limited
jurisdiction, ” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001), and “[a]ny
ambiguities are construed against removal and in favor of
remand to state court.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276
F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). “When considering a
motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of
showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was
proper.” Humphrey, 2014 WL 12687831, at *2
(quoting Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723).
contends that remand is warranted for two reasons. First, THM
untimely filed it notice of removal, and second, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. THM responds that it
timely filed its notice of removal and that subject matter
jurisdiction exists. The Court addresses each argument in