Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. v. Solantic Corporation
3:19-cv-00665
M.D. Fla.Jul 18, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. sued Solantic (d/b/a CareSpot) in Florida state court alleging overcharges for medical-record copies and asserting state-law claims: FDUTPA (Counts I–II), FCCPA (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and negligence (Count V).
- Plaintiff’s claims rest on alleged violations of duties arising from the HITECH Act/HIPAA regulatory scheme (e.g., limits on record-copying charges).
- Defendant removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because resolution requires interpreting the HITECH Act/HIPAA.
- The Court sua sponte questioned subject-matter jurisdiction because HIPAA/HITECH do not create a private right of action, which undermines the asserted federal-question basis for removal.
- The complaint’s damages allegation (overcharge of $19.25) suggests the amount in controversy likely does not exceed the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The Court ordered Defendant to SHOW CAUSE by August 1, 2019 why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of federal-question jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has federal-question jurisdiction because adjudication requires applying HITECH/HIPAA | Plaintiff contends state-law claims depend on application/interpretation of HITECH/HIPAA limits on record-copying charges, creating a federal question | CareSpot argues interpretation of HITECH/HIPAA makes the case arise under federal law, supporting removal under § 1331 | Court concluded it cannot find federal-question jurisdiction because HIPAA/HITECH do not create a private right of action and that alone does not confer § 1331 jurisdiction |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Plaintiff’s complaint alleges damages based on statutory/regulatory limits but does not assert high damages | CareSpot did not assert diversity jurisdiction in removal; amount alleged appears far below $75,000 | Court noted pleading suggests amount in controversy likely does not exceed $75,000 and CareSpot did not invoke § 1332; remand is likely absent a showing to the contrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction)
- University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (courts obligated to raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts must have at least one statutory basis for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2007) (no federal-question jurisdiction where the federal statute does not create a private right of action)
- Futrell v. United States, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000) (unpublished opinions are persuasive but not binding precedent)
- Haith ex rel. Accretive Health, Inc. v. Bronfman, 928 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (state-law claims that merely require reference to HIPAA/HITECH do not necessarily confer federal-question jurisdiction)