Aetna Life Insurance v. Kollmeyer (In Re Heritage Southwest Medical Group PA) , 464 F. App'x 285 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-10396     Document: 00511783541         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/09/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 9, 2012
    No. 11-10396                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    In the Matter of: HERITAGE SOUTHWEST MEDICAL GROUP PA,
    Debtor
    ___________________________
    AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AETNA U.S. HEALTHCARE
    INCORPORATED,
    Appellants
    v.
    KENNETH KOLLMEYER, M.D.; LAWRENCE ALTER, M.D.,
    Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:10-CV-684
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    This is an appeal from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy
    court’s decision not to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) an
    action by medical service providers as time-barred or for failure to prosecute or
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 11-10396     Document: 00511783541       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/09/2012
    No. 11-10396
    comply with a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court order at issue, in
    addition to deciding not to dismiss the case, remanded the case to state court.
    The parties do not question our jurisdiction, but we confirm that we have
    jurisdiction over the decision not to dismiss the case. See Adams v. Sidney
    Schafer & Assocs. (In re Adams), 
    809 F.2d 1187
    , 1188-89 (5th Cir. 1987).
    Aetna Life Insurance Company and its affiliate (collectively, “Aetna”)
    argue that the district court should not have reopened the case because the
    bankruptcy court should have instead dismissed the providers’ suit as time-
    barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The bankruptcy court and the
    district court correctly rejected Aetna’s limitations argument on the theory that
    statutes of limitation and equitable tolling are not implicated where claims are
    initially timely filed and, thereafter, the case is stayed or administratively closed
    by the bankruptcy or district court, as the case may be. As we have said many
    times, administrative closure does not have any effect on the rights of the parties
    and is simply a docket-management device. See, e.g., Mire v. Full Spectrum
    Lending Inc., 
    389 F.3d 163
     (5th Cir. 2004).
    Alternatively, Aetna argues that the lengthy time period that elapsed
    while the providers waited for legal issues to be resolved in our court and in the
    state court prejudiced them. The district court was particularly unpersuaded by
    Aetna’s claim of prejudice. It held that Aetna was on notice of the claims, should
    have retained the documents, should have obtained information regarding
    witnesses that would be critical in asserting its defenses, and should have taken
    other means to gather information regarding the validity of the claims. In its
    words, “[p]reserving vital evidence is basic and fundamental to avoiding legal
    prejudice. . . . [Aetna] offer[s] no proof that [it] will or [has] been prejudiced. The
    record reflects only argument by counsel.” We are still in that situation, and we
    are similarly unpersuaded. This court sets a high bar for a dismissal with
    prejudice under Rule 41(b). We have said that dismissal “is appropriate only if
    2
    Case: 11-10396   Document: 00511783541     Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/09/2012
    No. 11-10396
    the failure to comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay or
    contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser
    sanctions before dismissing the action.” Long v. Simmons, 
    77 F.3d 878
    , 880 (5th
    Cir. 1996) (emphases added). The bankruptcy court and the district court both
    correctly held that there was no basis for dismissing the providers’ claims.
    For these reasons and supported by excellent opinions by the bankruptcy
    and district courts, we AFFIRM the bankruptcy and district courts’ respective
    orders refusing to dismiss the providers’ case. Costs shall be borne by Aetna.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10396

Citation Numbers: 464 F. App'x 285

Judges: King, Benavides, Dennis

Filed Date: 3/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024