Transatlantic, LLC v. Humana, Inc. , 666 F. App'x 788 ( 2016 )

Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11488
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-01925-EAK-TBM
TRANSATLANTIC, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HUMANA, INC.,
HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY,
HUMANA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC.,
HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC.,
PCA FAMILY HEALTH PLANS OF FLORIDA, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 10, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 2 of 7
Transatlantic, LLC, appeals the dismissal of its third amended complaint
against Humana, Inc., Humana Insurance Company, Humana Health Insurance
Company of Florida, Inc., Humana Medical Plan, Inc., and PCA Family Health
Plans of Florida, Inc. The district court dismissed with prejudice Counts I through
IV, which alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)–(d), and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Counts V and VI, which alleged that the defendants
violated Florida law. Transatlantic contests the dismissal only of Counts I and II,
which alleged that the defendants operated a racketeering enterprise that used or
maintained itself by withholding funds owed to Transatlantic under a Medicare
Advantage program. See id. § 1962(a), (b). The district court ruled that the counts
lacked the particularity required to state a claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
We affirm.
Allegations of fraud, like those made by Transatlantic, are subject to the
heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which
requires that “a party . . . state with particularity the circumstances constituting
fraud.” Id. To satisfy Rule 9(b) in a civil action involving a scheme to defraud, a
plaintiff must identify the time, place, and substance of each allegedly fraudulent
act. Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1381 (11th
Cir. 1997). And when the alleged fraud involves multiple defendants, Rule 9(b)
2
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 3 of 7
requires that the plaintiff plead sufficient facts to “inform each defendant of the
nature of [its] alleged participation in the fraud.” Id. (quoting Vicom, Inc. v.
Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 777–78 (7th Cir. 1994)).
When the district court dismissed the second amended complaint without
prejudice, it warned Transatlantic that its pleading failed to satisfy the particularity
requirements of Rule 9(b). The district court explained that Transatlantic had
“fail[ed] to separate the individual Defendants in the RICO causes of action, and
. . . group[ed] them as a collective ‘Humana.’” The district court instructed
Transatlantic to refile a complaint that contained “specific allegations [about] each
defendant involved in the RICO causes of action, and their interrelationships for
RICO . . . .”
Transatlantic disregarded the instruction to identify the individual
defendants’ alleged racketeering activities. The third amended complaint treats the
defendants as a single entity. Transatlantic attributes the predicate acts jointly to
“HUMANA, INC., HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, HUMANA HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC. and HUMANA MEDICAL
PLAN, INC,” to “Defendant HUMANA,” to “HUMANA,” or to “Defendant.”
Transatlantic argues that the term “HUMANA” refers exclusively to Humana, Inc.,
but the opening paragraph of the amended complaint states that the term
“HUMANA” refers “collectively” to “the Defendants, HUMANA, INC.,
3
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 4 of 7
HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, HUMANA HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., PCA
HEALTH PLANS OF FLORIDA, INC., PCA FAMILY HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
PCA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND EMPLOYERS HEALTH
ISNURANCE [sic] COMPANY.” The third amended complaint fails to apprise
each defendant of its involvement in each allegedly fraudulent activity. Brooks,
116 F.3d at 1381.
Transatlantic also failed to adequately allege the existence of a pattern of
racketeering activity. A pattern of racketeering activity consists of at least two
predicate acts of racketeering committed within a ten-year period. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1), (5). Transatlantic alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, see id.§§ 1341, 1343, the interstate transmission and transfer of more than $5,000, id.
§ 2314, conversion, id. § 2315, and extortion, id. § 1951, but failed to describe any
predicate act with particularity. See Brooks, 116 F.3d at 1381.
The third amended complaint contains conclusory allegations of mail and
wire fraud. Transatlantic alleged that the defendants “did place and cause to be
placed mail matter to be sent and delivered by the United States Postal Service”
without mentioning a date of mailing or what “matter or thing” was sent. See 18
U.S.C. § 1341. With respect to wire fraud, Transatlantic alleged that there were six
occasions between 2009 and 2010 when “Defendant” sought a “disbursement of
4
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 5 of 7
funding for TRANSATLANTIC” and “caused an interstate wire transmission of
funds,” but failed to describe the parties to, the place of, or the content of the wire
communications, any misrepresentations made, or how the communications were
entwined in the scheme to defraud. See Brooks, 116 F.3d at 1371. In an attempt to
taint the transactions, Transatlantic alleged the “Defendant . . . intended to impose
an illegal and unwarranted withhold,” but Transatlantic neglected to allege that any
funds were actually withheld or why it was entitled to payment. Transatlantic
alleged it was “lulled into not taking action concerning . . . reimbursement”
because of an email that an employee of “HUMANA” sent “on or about January
10, 2013,” but Transatlantic described emails it sent in February and March of
2013 that inquired about its “outstanding account.” This collection of conclusions
and unrelated events falls far short of alleging a single episode of wire fraud.
The allegations of unlawful transmissions of funds, conversion, and
extortion suffer from similar infirmities. The third amended complaint was bereft
of any details pertaining to the allegations that, on four occasions, the defendants
“did cause to be transmitted and transferred in interstate commerce securities and
money of a value greater than five thousand dollars” with the “inten[t] to convert
and steal” and that, on four different occasions, the defendants “did receive,
possess, and conceal securities and money . . . [that had] been unlawfully
converted and taken.” The conclusory allegations made it impossible to discern
5
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 6 of 7
who initiated the transfers, how much was transferred, what entity transferred the
funds, the reason for the transfer, the route that the funds traveled, how
Transatlantic was entitled to the funds, or the means used to convert the funds. And
Transatlantic omitted from its allegation of extortion that its property was taken
“by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of
official right,” which is an element of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2);
United States v. Smalley, 754 F.2d 944, 947 (11th Cir. 1985).
The district court did not err by dismissing the third amended complaint
filed by Transatlantic. The amended complaint failed to state a claim of
racketeering in violation of section 1962(a) or (b). Transatlantic failed to allege a
single predicate act of racketeering activity or to identify how the individual
defendants participated in the alleged scheme to defraud.
Transatlantic asks that we remand for it to file an amended complaint, but it
would be futile to allow further amendment. The third amended complaint, like its
predecessor, is a quintessential “shotgun pleading.” It incorporates virtually every
antecedent allegation by reference in each subsequent claim for relief, is devoid of
facts to substantiate its allegations of racketeering, and leaves the defendants
unable to frame a response. See Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty.
Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Transatlantic proved incapable over the
course of three years—during which it amended the complaint numerous times—to
6
Case: 16-11488 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 7 of 7
file a complaint that stated a claim of racketeering against the defendants. The
district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the third amended
complaint with prejudice. See Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373,
1374 (11th Cir. 1999).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of the third amended complaint.
7