Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00531/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00531-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aetna Insurance
Defendant
Katie Renee Keisacker
Defendant
University of South Alabama
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA *

d/b/a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH *

ALABANA HOSPITALS, * CIVIL ACTION NO.15-00531-KD-B

*

vs. *

*

KATIE RENEE KEISACKER, et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff University of 

South Alabama’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Claim Against 

Aetna and Motion to Remand (Doc. 2). The motion seeking remand 

has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for entry 

of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR(a)(2)(S). Upon consideration, 

the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be 

granted, and this case be remanded to the Circuit Court of 

Mobile County, Alabama. 

The University of South Alabama d/b/a University of South 

Alabama Hospital (hereinafter “USA”) filed suit in the Circuit 

Court of Mobile County against Defendants Katie Renee Keisacker 

and Aetna Insurance Company in connection with medical services 

provided by USA to Keisacker. (Doc. 1-1). On October 20, 2015, 

Aetna filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) and asserted federal 

Case 1:15-cv-00531-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 5
2

question jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim 

against Aetna was preempted by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1132. (Id.). 

In response, USA voluntarily dismissed its claim against Aetna 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and requested that this 

action be remanded back to state court as the only claim 

remaining is against Kate Renee Keisacker for monies due for 

services rendered. 

The law is clear that a plaintiff may not by its unilateral 

act eliminate subject matter jurisdiction that existed at the 

moment of removal. Behlen v. Merrill Lynch, 311 F. 3d 1087, 1095

(llth Cir. 2002). “However, the removal of all claims over 

which the Court has original jurisdiction requires the Court to 

consider whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the 

remaining claims”.1 Gibson v. Mobile County Sheriff’s Dept., 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17874 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2015)(citing Behlen, 

311 F. 3d at 1095). 

The Court has jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

claim against Defendant Keisacker because it falls within the 

Court’s supplemental jurisdiction as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 

1367 (a). While the Court has supplemental jurisdiction, 

 1 As noted, Aetna removed this action based on federal 

question jurisdiction. With the voluntary dismissal of Aetna, 

the remaining parties are not diverse and the amount in 

controversy is $10,299.89, which is substantially below the 

threshold required for diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1-1).

Case 1:15-cv-00531-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 5
3

“district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if. . .the 

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction. . .” Id. § 1367 (c)(3). The Court has 

discretion in deciding whether or not to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction, and “should take into account concerns of comity, 

judicial economy, convenience, fairness and the like.” Parker v. 

Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F. 3d 733, 743 (llth Cir. 

2006); Cook ex rel Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe 

County, 402 F.3d 1092, 1123 (llth Cir. 2005)(internal quotes 

omitted.). The Eleventh Circuit has “encouraged district courts 

to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal 

claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Raney v. Allstate 

Insurance Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (llth Cir. 2004). And, the 

U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized that “in the usual case 

in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 

balance of factors to be considered under the pendent 

jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 

and comity-will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 

over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon University 

v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614, 98 L. Ed. 2d 

720 (1988). This is particularly true when the federal claims 

“have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages.” Id. at 

350.

Case 1:15-cv-00531-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 5
4

In light of this extant law, the undersigned finds that 

under the circumstances of this case, which is still in the 

early stage, the Court should exercise its discretion and not 

retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

claim in this action. Gibson v. Mobile County Sheriff’s Dept., 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17874 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2015)(citing 

Myers v. Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc., 592 F.3d 1201, 1226 (llth Cir. 

2010)). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remanded be GRANTED, and that action be 

remanded to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

Case 1:15-cv-00531-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 5
5

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 27th day of October, 2015.

 /s/ Sonja F. Bivins a

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00531-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/27/15 Page 5 of 5