Case Information
*1 10-4094-cv
HealthNow New York Inc. v. State of New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governеd by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court = s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation A summary order @ ). A party citing a summary order must servе a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sеcond Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 12 th day of September, two thоusand eleven.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges ,
LORETTA A. PRESKA,1
Chief District Judge .
_____________________________________________
H EALTH N OW N EW Y ORK I NC .,
Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 10-4094-cv T HE S TATE OF N EW Y ORK and E RIC T. S CHNEIDERMAN , in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York,
Defendants-Appellees .**
______________________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: M ICHAEL P. M C CL AREN , Webster Szanyi LLP,
(Nelson Perel, on the brief ) Buffalo, New York. 1 The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. *2 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: V ICTOR P ALADINO , Assistant Solicitor General,
(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, and Andrew D. Bing, Deputy Solicitor General) for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, Albany, New York.
N ICHOLAS I. T IMKO , New York State Trial Lawyers Association, New York, New York, and R OBERT S. P ECK , Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C. for amicus curiae New York State Trial Lawyers Association.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Westеrn District of New York (Skretny, C.J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED , that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED .
HealthNow New York Inc. (“HealthNow”) brought suit against defendants the State of
New York and Eric T. Schneiderman, in his official сapacity as Attorney General of the State of
New York, seeking to declare invalid and enjoin enforcement of the stаte’s Anti-Subrogation Law,
codified at New York General Obligations Law § 5-335. The Anti-Subrogation Law permits
insureds to avoid having to reimburse their benefit рrovider, out of settlement proceeds, for
medical expenses arising from personal injuries caused by third-party tortfeasоrs. HealthNow
subsequently agreed to drop its claims against the State of New York. The district court granted
the defendants’ motion to dismiss the сomplaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that
the Attorney General was not a proper defendant under the
Ex Parte Young
exception to the state’s
Eleventh Amendment immunity because he not only lacked the requisite connection with the
enforcement of the Anti-Subrogation Law but he also had not expressed sufficient willingness to
exercise any putative authority to enforce the law.
HealthNow New York, Inc. v. State of New
*3
York
,
I. Discussion
We review
de novo
a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
,
“Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’
and ‘Controvеrsies’ and thus imposes what the Supreme Court has described as the ‘irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing,’ ― injury-in-fact, causation, and redressibility.”
Baur v.
Veneman
,
HealthNow asserts it has two injuries-in-fact: (1) that it will lose $14 million if it cannot enforce сontractual subrogation provisions against insureds who settle with tortfeasors and (2) that it fears enforcement from the Attorney General under New York Executive Law § 63(12). *4 Having examined these two purported injuries separately, we hold that HealthNow has not demonstratеd that it has standing to pursue the cause of action at issue here.
We begin with the $14 million in potential losses that HealthNow claims it will lose as a result of the Anti-Subrogation Law being in effect. Although the Attorney General concedes this is a legitimate injury-in-fact for purposes of standing, HealthNow cannot demonstrate that this injury is caused by any action on the part of the Attorney General, the only party HealthNow is suing. Nоthing the Attorney General is doing or could threaten to do under section 63(12) is effecting that $14 million loss. Rather, that injury is caused solely by HealthNow’s insureds having been provided a defense to HealthNow’s subrogation claims by the statute.
The second injury-in-fact HealthNow asserts is the threat that the Attorney General will
invoke his authority under section 63(12) against HealthNow in connection with the
Anti-Subrogation Law. Although the Attorney Gеneral would be the “cause” of such an injury
and an injunction would fully redress such injury, there is nothing to indicate the Attorney General
has used or is аbout to use section 63(12) to investigate HealthNow’s practices in connection with
the Anti-Subrogation Law. Because this is a prospective injury, the aggrieved party must
demonstrate “the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct.”
Davis v. Fed. Election
Comm’n
,
Only by mixing a stated injury ― loss of $14 million ― with the cause and redressibility of an entirely different injury ― threatened enforcement of section 63(12) ― can HealthNow pretend to meet the three-part standing test under Lujan . Simply put, however, HealthNow has failed tо allege a requisite “case” or “controversy” against the Attorney General, and because HealthNow therefore lacks standing, this suit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. Conclusion
We have considered all of HealthNow’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk