Ronald E. Sholes, P.A. v. Campbell
3:21-cv-00494
| M.D. Fla. | Feb 17, 2022Background
- Charlene Campbell’s personal-injury claim settled for $100,000; her law firm Ronald E. Sholes, P.A. claims $56,200 in fees and costs and numerous medical providers assert approximately $223,694.73 in liens/charges.
- The firm filed an interpleader in state court seeking allocation of the settlement; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (Florida Blue) removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) as an FEHBA-plan administrator.
- The firm deposited the $100,000 settlement into the Court’s registry per the Court’s order; Sea Spine withdrew its claim, three defendants appeared and tentatively agreed an allocation (conditioned on extinguishing nonappearing parties’ rights), and Campbell has not appeared.
- Clerk’s defaults were entered against ten defendants who failed to answer or defend; the firm moved for default judgment against those ten to terminate their claims to the fund.
- The court found removal proper under § 1442 because Florida Blue acts under the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and asserted colorable federal defenses (FEHBA preemption, sovereign immunity), held interpleader appropriate, and recommended entering default judgments against the ten defaulting entities while continuing the action among remaining parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) | Florida Blue: it administers an FEHBA plan under OPM authority, has causal connection to dispute, and raises colorable federal defenses (FEHBA preemption, sovereign immunity) | The interpleader plaintiff did not successfully oppose removal; other defendants largely did not contest jurisdiction | Court: § 1442 removal proper; federal court has jurisdiction under § 1442(a)(1) |
| Appropriateness of interpleader | Sholes: multiple adverse claimants to single fund and full deposit into Court registry make interpleader proper | Florida Blue raised federal-law defenses but did not dispute appropriateness of interpleader as mechanism | Court: interpleader is appropriate; action proceeds in first-stage (no discharge because stakeholder is interested) |
| Default judgment against nonappearing claimants | Sholes: default judgment should terminate defaulting defendants’ interests and remove inactive claimants | Defaulting defendants made no opposition (did not appear) | Court: default judgment recommended against ten defaulting entities, forfeiting any interest in the fund |
| Personal jurisdiction over defaulting defendants | Sholes: process returns show service on entities/agents | Some service/pleading allegations may be insufficient for specific defendants; defaults may later collaterally challenge jurisdiction | Court: declined to resolve personal-jurisdiction now; allowed default judgments but noted defendants may later attack jurisdiction in collateral proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (§ 1442 is a pure jurisdictional statute granting independent federal jurisdiction over actions involving federal officers)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (removal under § 1442(a)(1) is available where suit is for an act under color of federal office)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (scope of "acting under" federal officer is broad and liberally construed)
- Caver v. Cent. Ala. Elec. Coop., 845 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (elements for § 1442 removal: person acting under federal officer, causal connection, colorable federal defense)
- Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils, 137 S. Ct. 1190 (2017) (FEHBA preemption can prioritize plan reimbursement over state law constraints)
- St. Charles Surgical Hosp., L.L.C. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 935 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2019) (upholding § 1442 removal where FEHBA-plan administrator was involved)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967) (interpleader protects stakeholders and claimants by resolving competing claims to a fund)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (court must ensure well-pleaded allegations support relief before entering default judgment)
- Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) (by defaulting, defendants admit well-pleaded factual allegations)