Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Humble Surgical Ho, No. 12-20525 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-20525 Document: 00512206378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED April 12, 2013 No. 12-20525 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellee, versus HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, L.L.C., Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:12-CV-1206 *************** No. 13-20084 In re: HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, L.L.C. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4-12-CV-1206 Case: 12-20525 Document: 00512206378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 No. 12-20525 No. 13-20084 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Aetna Life Insurance Company sued Humble Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., for alleged overbilling. The district court denied the hospital s motion for a stay pending arbitration and its motion to compel arbitration. The hospital appeals the denial of arbitration, petitions for writ of mandamus regarding a discovery order, and moves for this court to take judicial notice. This court granted the hospital s motion for stay pending decisions on the appeal and the mandamus petition. We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The hospital has shown no entitlement to relief from this court at this time. Especially in view of the steep standards for overcoming an order denying arbitration and for obtaining mandamus relief, the hospital has shown no abuse of discretion or reversible error. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is AFFIRMED. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. The motion for judicial notice is DENIED. The order granting a stay pending a decision on appeal and mandamus is VACATED. These consolidated matters are REMANDED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. We express no view on any merits issue or on how the district court should conduct the remaining proceedings. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2
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.
