James Gardner, et al v. Cigna, et al, No. 11-11207 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-11207 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 28, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket Nos. 1:00-md-01334-FAM, 1:10-cv-22235-FAM JAMES GARDNER, DERRICK E. ANTELL, BRIAN MULLINS, CARMEN KAVALI, M.D., AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY, TENNESSEE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, EL PASO COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, AMERICAN PODIATRIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NEW JERSEY PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CIGNA , CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA HEALTH CORPORATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 28, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellants are plaintiff health care providers in an action in New Jersey (Franco et al. v. Cigna Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-06039-SRC). In that consolidated action, they allege improper reductions of assigned claims for healthcare benefits. In response to that lawsuit, Cigna filed motions in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida the court handling In Re Managed Care Litig., MDL No.1334 seeking an order to compel the Franco plaintiffs to withdraw their RICO and antitrust claims. On November 30, 2009, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that the RICO and antitrust claims asserted in Franco were covered by an injunction entered earlier in the MDL 1334 matter and ordered that they be withdrawn. That order was appealed to us, and we dismissed the 2 appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Ex. A attached. As we explained, injunctions are tested through civil contempt procedures and the district court did not include a finding of contempt or impose sanctions. Id. See also 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291; Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass n, 594 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2010). Rather than follow the procedure set forth in our earlier ruling, appellants filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Franco was not covered by the injunction entered in the multi-district litigation. The district court dismissed that action, stating that it had already ruled on that question. This appeal attacks that ruling. We review this dismissal for abuse of discretion. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1995); Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005); Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1134-35 (11th Cir. 2005). Clearly, there is none. A declaratory judgment action is no substitute for following the established procedure for testing injunctions, to wit: contempt and sanctions. AFFIRMED.1 1 The pending motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
