Stephen Henry v. Wellpoint, Inc. , 469 F. App'x 761 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 26, 2012
No. 11-11209
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:00-md-01334-FAM,
1:10-cv-22403-FAM
DERRICK E. ANTELL, M.D.,
ALAN B. SCHORR, M.D.,
FRANK G. TONREY, M.D.,
CARMEN KAVALI, M.D.,
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY,
TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY,
TENNESSEE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA,
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY,
MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
AETNA INC.,
AETNA U.S. HEALTHCARE,
AETNA HEALTH INC., PA, CORP.,
AETNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC,
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
No. 11-11211
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:00-md-01334-FAM,
1:10-cv-22373-FAM
STEPHEN HENRY,
JAMES SCHWENDIG,
CARMEN KAVALI,
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA,
CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY,
NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
WELLPOINT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 26, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants are plaintiffs in lawsuits filed in California and New Jersey
2
attacking the rates used to pay assigned claims for healthcare benefits. In response
to these suits, appellees sought relief in the District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, the court that had handled the settlement in In Re Managed Care Litig.,
MDL No.1334. The district court in Florida found that the California and New
Jersey suits violated its injunction and ordered that they be withdrawn. That order
was appealed to us. On April 21, 2010, we dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See Ex. A attached. We stated that the order was not final because
there had been no imposition of sanctions for violating the order. Id.
Rather than completing the procedure for testing injunctions (a finding of
contempt with the imposition of sanctions), appellants filed these declaratory
judgment actions seeking a declaration that their suits in California and New Jersey
were not covered by the injunction entered in MDL 1334. The district court
dismissed the suits and stated that it had already determined that the suits in
question were covered by the earlier injunction. Now, the California and New
Jersey plaintiffs appeal that dismissal.
We review such dismissal for abuse of discretion. Wilton v. Seven Falls
Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1995); Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411
F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005); Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132,
1134-35 (11th Cir. 2005). Clearly, there is none. A declaratory judgment action is
3
no substitute for following the established procedure for testing injunctions, to wit:
contempt and sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
4