Stephen Henry, et al v. Wellpoint, Inc., No. 11-11211 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 26, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 11-11209 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:00-md-01334-FAM, 1:10-cv-22403-FAM DERRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., ALAN B. SCHORR, M.D., FRANK G. TONREY, M.D., CARMEN KAVALI, M.D., AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 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 SOCIETY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus AETNA INC., AETNA U.S. HEALTHCARE, AETNA HEALTH INC., PA, CORP., AETNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ________________________ No. 11-11211 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:00-md-01334-FAM, 1:10-cv-22373-FAM STEPHEN HENRY, JAMES SCHWENDIG, CARMEN KAVALI, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus WELLPOINT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 26, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellants are plaintiffs in lawsuits filed in California and New Jersey 2 attacking the rates used to pay assigned claims for healthcare benefits. In response to these suits, appellees sought relief in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the court that had handled the settlement in In Re Managed Care Litig., MDL No.1334. The district court in Florida found that the California and New Jersey suits violated its injunction and ordered that they be withdrawn. That order was appealed to us. On April 21, 2010, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Ex. A attached. We stated that the order was not final because there had been no imposition of sanctions for violating the order. Id. Rather than completing the procedure for testing injunctions (a finding of contempt with the imposition of sanctions), appellants filed these declaratory judgment actions seeking a declaration that their suits in California and New Jersey were not covered by the injunction entered in MDL 1334. The district court dismissed the suits and stated that it had already determined that the suits in question were covered by the earlier injunction. Now, the California and New Jersey plaintiffs appeal that dismissal. We review such 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 3 no substitute for following the established procedure for testing injunctions, to wit: contempt and sanctions. AFFIRMED. 4
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.
