Superior MRI Services, Inc. v. Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc.

See case details

SUPERIOR MRI SERVICES, INCORPORATED; Superior MRI Services, Incorporated, as Successor in Interest of P & L Contracting, Incorporated v. ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Alliance Imaging, Incorporated, doing business as Alliance Imaging; Alliance Imaging, Incorporated; John Doe

No. 14-60087

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 2015.

778 F.3d 502

trial court, yet he does not articulate the standard for such motions under Mississippi law. See id. at 447 (“[A]mong other requirements to properly raise an argument, a party must ordinarily identify the relevant legal standards and any relevant Fifth Circuit cases.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Loden also points to the additional psychological evidence presented in Dr. High‘s affidavit and argues that appellate counsel was deficient for not developing that evidence themselves and presenting it before the trial court. Yet Loden fails to connect Dr. High‘s statements regarding Loden‘s mental statе at the time he pleaded guilty to the mental state required by law for the entry of a valid plea or even to articulate what the required mental state is. See id. at 446-47. Loden also argues that his appellate attorneys’ arguments that his trial lawyers’ erroneous advice about his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions were deficient. Yet that claim was presented by Loden‘s appellate lawyers in the motion to vacate the guilty plea. In resolving that motion, Loden testified and the trial court apparently found his assertion that he misunderstood his appellate rights and would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly advised not to be credible. It is unclear what Loden contends his appellate counsel should have done that would alter that result. As such, the Mississippi Supreme Court‘s decision that Loden was not prejudiced by any deficient performance by his appellate counsel was not unreasonable under clearly established federal law, as determined by the United Stаtes Supreme Court.

VI.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bobby Taylor Vance, Esq., Attorney, Vance Law Office, Batesville, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Crane D. Kipp, Esq., Gaye Nell Currie, Esq., William James Dukes, Rex Morris Shannon, III, Esq., Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:

Superior MRI Services, Inc. (Superior), on behalf of itself and as successor-in-interest to P & L Contracting, Inc. (P & L), sued Alliance HealthCare Services, ‍​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍Inc. (Alliance), alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with business rеlations and tortious interference with contract. Superior‘s claims arise from contractual rights that Superior allegedly acquired from P & L, its purported predecessor-in-interest. The district court dismissed Superior‘s tortious interference claims, ruling that Superior failed to establish that it acquired those contractual rights from P & L and that Superior lacked prudential standing to enforce P & L‘s rights.¹ Because we agree that Superior failed to prove the existence of prudential standing by а preponderance of the evidence, we affirm.

I.

P & L incorporated in October 2006 and, while it was in operation, offered mobile MRI services to Mississippi hospitals. On January 19, 2012, P & L filed a Chapter 7 bankruрtcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. In the schedule of assignments contained in its bankruptcy petition, P & L listed an assignment of “MRI Service agreements” to Superior with a date of assignmеnt of October 1, 2011. Almost two months after this purported assignment, on November 28, 2011, Superior filed its Articles of Incorporation with the Mississippi Secretary of State. P & L formally dissolved on November 15, 2012. Superior‘s complaint describes three incidents in which Alliance allegedly interfered with MRI Service agreements or impaired a prospective business relationship. Each of these incidents occurred prior to thе date on which Superior filed its articles of incorporation.

II.

We review de novo a district court‘s rulings on the issue of standing. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Labuzan, 579 F.3d 533, 538 (5th Cir.2009). “A district court‘s factual findings, including those on which the court based its legal conclusions, are reviewed for clear error.” Id.

III.

“Prudential standing requirеments exist in addition to the immutable requirements of Article III as an integral part of judicial self-government.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Labuzan, 579 F.3d 533, 539 (5th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). One principle of prudential standing requires “that a plaintiff generally must assert his ‍​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 919-20 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A motion to dismiss for lack of standing may be either “facial” or “factual.” Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir.1981). An attack is “factual” rather than “fаcial” if the defendant “submits affidavits, testimony, or other evidentiary materials.” Id. To defeat a factual attack, a plaintiff “must prove the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderanсe of the evidence” and is “obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain his burden of proof.” Irwin v. Veterans Admin., 874 F.2d 1092, 1096 (5th Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted), aff‘d sub nom., Irwin v. Dep‘t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990).

In the district court, Alliance brought a factual attack on Superior‘s prudential standing, submitting records from the Office of the Mississippi Secretary of State, the Mississippi State Department of Health, the United States Bankruptcy Court, and the Department of the Treasury. The district court reviewed these submissions and othеr documents in the public record, and the district court ruled that Superior failed to establish that P & L assigned its contractual rights to Superior or that Superior ratified any such assignment. According to the district court, P & L‘s bаnkruptcy filings list an October 2011 assignment of “MRI service agreements” to Superior, but Superior did not file its Articles of Incorporation with the Mississippi Secretary of State until November 28, 2011. Thus, the district court found that Superior did not exist as a corporation at the time of the purported assignment from P & L. See Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-2.03(a) (“[T]he corporate existence begins when the articles of incorporation are filed.“). The district court rejected Superior‘s contentions that P & L and Superior “merged” or that Superior ratified the assignment after incorporation.

On appeal, Superior argues that the assignment was valid and that Superior ratified the assignment once it “finalized its incorporation process.” Superior ‍​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍fails to support either assertion. With respect to the assignment, Superior did not proffer any evidence of an assignment other than the statement in P & L‘s bankruptcy petition that P & L had previously assigned “MRI Service agreements” to Superior MRI Services. Superior did not produce any assignment agreement or any document memorializing an assignment. Even if the statеment in the bankruptcy petition sufficed to prove an assignment of some kind, the vague statement that “MRI Service agreements” were assigned does not establish that the particular agreements at issue in this сase are among those that were assigned. Moreover, each of the contracts on which Superior‘s claims are predicated contains language prohibiting any assignment by P & L without the written cоnsent of the contracting hospitals. Superior submitted no evidence that the contracting hospitals consented to any assignment.

Even if P & L did attempt to assign its rights to Superior, we find no clear error in the district court‘s finding that the purported assignment took place before Superior existed as a corporation.² Thus, Superior would have had to ratify the assignment once Superior finalized the incorporation process. See Pearl Realty Co. v. Wells, 164 Miss. 300, 145 So. 102, 103 (1933) (“It is permissible for promoters to make contracts which, if ratified by corporations after they are organized, will bind the corporations.“). Superior proffered evidence that it had a federal tax identification number and bank account as early as September 20, 2011, and it claims that it was doing business as Superior MRI Services before it “finalized its incorporation procеss.” However, Superior does not cite any evidence that it ratified the purported assignment after incorporation. Superior also claims that the Mississippi State Board of Health “authorized and approved the merger of [P & L‘s] vendor route into [Superior‘s],” but Superior offers no authority for the proposition that the Board of Health‘s approval of a vendor route merger is evidencе of a ratified contractual assignment.³

Superior also argues that the recent Supreme Court case of Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014), prevents this court form applying the prudential standing doctrine as a jurisdictional bar. In Lexmark, the Supreme Court аddressed a different type of prudential standing requirement than that at issue here: “the requirement that a plaintiff‘s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Id. at 1386 (internal quotation marks оmitted). Although the Supreme Court had previously ‍​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍referred to this zone-of-interests inquiry as one of prudential standing, the Lexmark Court clarified that the zone-of-interests inquiry is properly viewed as one of statutory interpretаtion: “Whether a plaintiff comes within the zone of interests is an issue that requires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action enсompasses a particular plaintiff‘s claim.” Id. at 1387 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Lexmark holding deals only with the zone-of-interests test and not with the requirement that a party assert its own rights, Lexmark does not control here. To be sure, Lexmark does note that prudential standing doctrine as a whole “is in some tension with . . . the principle that a federal court‘s obligation to hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction is virtually unflagging.” Id. at 1386 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we have long applied the prudential requiremеnt that a party must assert its own rights, see, e.g., Danos v. Jones, 652 F.3d 577, 582 (5th Cir.2011), and we are bound to follow our precedent until the Supreme Court squarely holds to the contrary, see Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d 380, 394 (5th Cir.2014).

AFFIRMED.

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Notes

1

The district court also dismissed Superior‘s claims alleging violatiоns of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Mississippi‘s Certificate of Need regulations. Superior does not appear to challenge the dismissal of those claims and, in any event, we find no error.

2

Plaintiff рoints out two misstatements in the district court‘s opinion. First, the district court stated that Superior was not in existence at the time P & L “dissolved.” Superior was in existence when P & L dissolved, but it was not in existence when P & L purportedly assigned contracts to it. Second, the district court stated that Superiоr “has not put forth any allegations or facts rebutting that they are indeed a successor in interest to P & L.” The context makes clear that the inclusion of the word “rebutting” was a mistake. Neither misstatement affects the outcome of the case.

3

We express no opinion on the merits of the case ‍​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍or the adequacy of the pleadings under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). We also express no opinion on whether Superior should be permitted to amend its complaint or whether P & L‘s bankruptcy trustee may be entitled to assert the claims for which Superior lacks standing.

Case Details

Case Name: Superior MRI Services, Inc. v. Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 18, 2015

Citation: 778 F.3d 502

Docket Number: 14-60087

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.