Jacks v. Meridian Resource Co., et al, No. 11-3037 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis case principally involved challenges to the application, in Missouri, of the provision of the Plan administered by BCBS-KC that required a Plan enrollee who received benefits in connection with any injury in addition to compensation from a third party must reimburse BCBS-KC the amount of benefits paid. Given the state's antisubrogration laws, plaintiff contended that BCBS-KC was unable to recover its reimbursement liens in Missouri. BCBS-KC removed the action to federal district court and plaintiff then moved to remand the matter to state court. BCBS-KC subsequently appealed the district court's remand based upon the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d); its determination that federal common law was not contemplated in this action; and its decision that BCBS-KC could not remove this matter under the federal officer removal statute. Because the court determined that this matter was properly in federal court under the federal officer removal statute, the court need not address plaintiff's remaining claims. That said, the court did not delve into the CAFA claim, but rather reversed the district court's judgment and remanded this matter for further consideration, directing that this action remain in federal court.
Court Description: Civil case - Class Action Fairness Act. This court had jurisdiction to review two of the three bases relied upon by the district court to support remand of this action to state court, but court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding the availability of federal common law to resolve the suit; district court erred in remanding the matter as the dispute in the case was between federal employee members and their insurance carriers contracting under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act; such carriers conduct business under the delegation of the federal government and the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) made remand to state court improper.
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.