MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Auto Insurance Company, 1:16-cv-20320

Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1, LLC sued Infinity Auto Insurance under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, asserting assigned subrogation/reimbursement rights from Florida Healthcare Plus (FHCP) via La Ley Recovery and intermediate assignees.
The La Ley agreement required FHCP approval of any assignee; the complaint did not allege FHCP approved MSPA Claims as assignee.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing; the court considered the unredacted La Ley agreement (attached to filings) in ruling under Rule 12(b)(1).
On August 30, 2016 the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing because the assignment lacked the required FHCP approval.
Plaintiff moved under Rule 59(e) for reconsideration and leave to amend, arguing (1) the court erred in dismissing rather than remanding and in treating the motion as a factual attack, (2) the defect could be cured by amendment, and (3) intervening Eleventh Circuit authority (MSP Recovery v. Allstate) altered controlling law.
The court denied reconsideration, finding no clear error, no intervening controlling change affecting the standing ruling, and that Plaintiff improperly raised arguments and evidence that could have been presented earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by dismissing rather than remanding	Court lacked jurisdiction and should have remanded	Standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue; dismissal for lack of standing is proper	Court: No error; standing can be resolved first and dismissal was proper
Whether the court improperly converted Rule 12(b)(1) motion into summary judgment by considering the La Ley agreement	Use of agreement converted motion to summary judgment	Agreement is central and undisputed; consideration is allowed on Rule 12(b)(1) attack	Court: No conversion; consideration permitted under Day v. Taylor
Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend to plead FHCP approval	Dismissal based on pleading defect; amendment could cure standing	Plaintiff could have raised facts/arguments earlier; Rule 59(e) not vehicle for new arguments	Court: Denied leave; Rule 59(e) cannot present arguments available before judgment
Whether MSP Recovery v. Allstate is intervening controlling law that grants standing	Allstate changes law to allow these assignments, so reconsideration required	Allstate addressed Anti-Assignment Act, not the FHCP-approval issue here	Court: Allstate is not controlling for this dismissal; no intervening change

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (threshold jurisdictional questions include standing)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (courts may choose among threshold grounds for denying audience)
Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229 (standing as threshold issue)
Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (court may consider undisputed, central documents on motion to dismiss)
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757 (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to raise arguments available before judgment)
MSP Recovery, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 835 F.3d 1351 (Eleventh Circuit decision on Anti-Assignment Act; not dispositive here)
Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106 (Rule 59(e) relief is within district court discretion)
Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) described)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (district court decisions are not binding precedent)