FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
J AN 28, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 0- 13 28 0

Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 3 :0 7- cv -0 06 27 -HES-J RK

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
STATE FARM FIR E & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,

ve rs us

DUVAL IMAGING, LCC, et al

.

Defen da nt s,

STEVEN W ARFIELD, DC, in di vi du al ly and as a m em be r of Duv al Im ag in g, LLC,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 28 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:St at e Farm Mu tu al Aut om ob il e In su ran ce Co m pa ny an d St at e Farm Fi re an d

Cas ua lt y Co m

pa ny (“ St at e Farm ”) su ed Duv al Im ag in g, LLC (“ Duv al Im ag in g” ) an d

it s th ree in di vi du al m em be rs , se ek in g to reco ve r “ no -fau lt ” au to m ob il e in su ran ce

b e n efi ts pa id to Duv al Im ag in g be twee n 20 02 an d 20 05

. Dur in g th at ti m e pe rio d

,

St at e Farm pa id Duv al Im ag in g be ne fit s in ex ces s of $4 90 ,00 0 fo r se rv ic es pr ov id ed

to St at e Farm in su red s. St at e Farm al le ge s th os e be ne fit s are reco ve rab le be cau se ,

du rin g th at ti m e pe rio d, Duv al I mag i n g was op erat in g an un accr ed it ed di ag no st ic

im ag in g cl in ic an d was su bm it ti ng fal se an d frau du le nt cl ai m s to St at e Farm in or de r

to co ll ect pa y

m en t. St at e Farm fu rth er co nt en ds th at St ev en W arfi el d, on e of Duv al

Im ag in g’s in di vi du al m em be rs , i s pe rs on al l y l ia bl e fo r th es e pa y m en ts du e, in pa rt,

to act io ns he to ok whi le ser vi ng as th e co ur t-a pp oi nt ed rece iv er o f Duv al Im ag in g.

W arfield fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t in th e di st ric t co ur t, arg ui ng th at

he en joy s ab so lu te im m

un it y wit h res pe ct to cl ai m s ag ai ns t hi m fo r hi s act io ns whi le

he was re cei ve r. The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d Warfi el d’s m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t t he re ar e

tri ab le is su e s of fact as to whe th er he fai th fu ll y an d care fu ll y carr ie d ou t th e st at eco ur t or de r ap po in ti ng hi m rece iv er. W arfi el d no w ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi m im m un it y

. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we affi rm th e jud gm en t

of th e d is tri ct co ur t.

2A. Col la te ral Orde r Doc tri ne

W e fir st co ns id er ou r juri sd ic ti on in th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. W e or de red

su pp le m en t a l b rie fin g in th is cas e to ad dr es s th e qu es ti on of whe th er th e co ll at eral

or de r do ct rin e pr ov id es ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

. Thi s juris di ct io na l q ue st io n t ur ns on

whe th er th e im m

un it y affo rd ed to rece iv ers un de r Fl or id a la w is im m un it y fro m su it

an d l ia bi li ty, or on ly im m un it y fro m li ab il it y

. Alt ho ug h we ha ve fou nd no rep or te d

Fl o r i d a cas e di rect ly ad dr es si ng th e qu es ti on , an d th e pa rti es ha ve ci te d no ne , we

co n c l u d e t ha t th e im m

un it y affo rd ed to rece iv ers un de r Fl or id a la w in cl ud es

im m un it y fro m su it

, n o t mer el y im m un it y fro m li ab il it y

. The rat io na le be hi nd th e

rece iv ers hi p im m

un it y at is su e in th is cas e is th at li ti ga ti on pa rti ci pa nt s, s u c h as a

rece iv er, m

us t be “ free to us e th ei r be st jud gm en t i n pr os ecu ti ng or de fen di ng a

la wsu it wi th ou t fe ar of ha vi ng to de fe nd th ei r ac ti on s in a su bs eq ue nt ci vi l act io n fo r

m is co nd uc t.” Levi n, Mid dl eb ro ok s, Mab ie

, Th oma s, May es & Mit ch el l, P.A. v.

Uni te d St at es Fir e In s. Co

. , 63 9 So

. 2d 60 6, 60 8 (Fl a. 19 94 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Se e

al so Ech eva rr ia

, McCa ll a, Ray mer
, Bar re tt & Fra

pp ie r v. Co le

, 95 0 So

. 2d 38 0, 38 4

(Fl a. 20 07 ) (“ It is th e p e rcei ve d ne ces si ty fo r can di d an d un res tra in ed

co m m un ic at io ns in th os e [jud ic ia l] pr oc eed in gs , fr e e of th e th re at of le ga l ac ti on s

p r ed ic at ed up on th os e co m m un ic at io ns , th at is at th e he art of th e ru le .”) ( e mp h a s i s

3ad de d)

. W e acco rd in gl y fin d th at th ere is juri sd ic ti on to he ar W arfi el d’s in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al un de r th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne

.

B. Rece iv ers hi p Imm

un it y

St at e Farm ha s su ed W arfi el d, an in di vi du al m em be r of Duv al Im ag in g wit h a

fo rty-p e r c e n t i n t eres t in th e LLC, in Co un ts Thre e, Fo ur , an d Si x of th e Am en de d

Co m pl ai nt

. St at e Fa r m a l l eg es th at W arfi el d co m m it te d frau d by op erat in g an

un accr ed it ed di ag no st ic im ag in g cl in ic an d su bm it ti ng fal se an d frau du le nt cl ai m s to

St at e Farm in or de r to co ll ect pa y m en t, an d th at W arfi el d is pe rs on al ly li ab le fo r su ch

frau d pu rs ua nt to Fl a. St at

. § 60 8.4 22 8 (Co un t Thre e); th at W a r f i e l d ne gl ig en tl y

ret ai ne d an d su pe rv is ed Tin a Vald ez, an ot he r in di vi du al m em be r of Duv al Im ag in g,

by al lo win g he r to co nt in ue to m an ag e an un accr ed it ed cl in ic an d to su bm it frau du le nt

cl ai ms t o S t a te Farm

, an d th at W arfi el d is pe rs on al ly li ab le fo r su ch ne gl ig en ce

pu rs ua nt to Fl a. St at

. Ann

. § 60 8.4 22 8 (Co un t Fo ur ); an d th at W arfi el d is pe rs on al ly

li ab le to St at e Farm

, un de r Fl a. St at

. § 60 8.7 01

, fo r m on et ary da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m

th e su bm is si on of frau du le nt cl ai m s be cau se Du v a l Im ag in g was a m ere

in st ru m en ta li ty or al te r eg o of W arfi el d (Co u n t S i x )

. W arfi el d arg ue s th at he is 1

State Fa rm’s theory of rec overy underly ing a ll of these claims is tha t D uval I mag ing was 1

not a proper ly acc redited clinic, and that Duval I mag ing submitt ed false statements to State Fa rm in
order to c ollect pay

ment. I n particula

r, State Fa

rm claims that: ( 1) betwee n November 1, 2002 and
October 22, 2003, Duval I mag ing was not proper ly reg istered with the Florida Depa rtment of Hea lth; (2) betwee n November 1, 2002, and Dec ember 31, 2005, Duval I mag ing used a closed MRI unit that

was not 100% owned or l ease d by Duval I m agi n g; (3 ) betwee n Marc h 1, 2004 and Decembe r 31,

4im m

un e as to al l of th es e cl ai ms be cau se a st at e co ur t ap po in te d hi m rece iv er of

Duv al Im ag in g.

The on ly iss ue we ad dr es s i n t hi s ap pe al is whet he r th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

de nyi n g Wa rfi el d su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e ex te nt th e m ot io n was gr ou nd ed up on

im m un it y

.

In Mar ch 20 05

, W arfi el d fil ed a st at e-co ur t act io n t o effe ct th e jud ic ia l

di s s o l u t i on of Duv al Im ag in g pu rs ua nt to Fl a. St at

. § 60 8.4 49

. W arfi el d ba se d hi s

req ue st fo r jud ic ia l di ss ol ut io n on th e de ad lo ck th at res ul te d whe n Tin a V al de z, an

in di vi du al m em

be r of th e LLC wit h a fo rty-per cen t in te res t, ap p a r e nt ly ab an do ne d

Duv al Im ag in g. In co nn ect io n wi th hi s ef fo rt to jud ic ia ll y di ss ol ve Duv al Im ag in g,

W arfi el d so ug ht th e ap po in tm en t of a rece iv er pu rs ua nt to Fl a. St at

. § 60 8.4 49 2. He

arg ue d th at a rece iv er was ne ces sa ry be cau se , un de r th e op erat in g ag reem en t, he was

no t au t h o r i z e d t o pa rti ci pa te in th e op erat io n of th e co m pa ny be cau se he was no t a

“ m em be r-m an ag er” bu t a m ere “ m em be r” of th e LL C. A Fl or id a st at e co ur t

ap po in te d W arfi el d th e rece iv er of Duv al Im ag in g, an d he was gr an te d “ th e rig ht an d

d u t y t o ex erci se al l of th e po wers of Duv al Im ag in g, LLC, in pl ace of it s memb e r

2 0 0 5

, Duval I mag ing was not proper ly acc redited by Florida ’s Ag ency for Hea lt h C ar e Ad minist ration; (4) between March 1, 2004 and J uly 31, 2005, Duval I mag ing used an open MR I
unit that was not 100% owned or lease d by Duval I mag ing; and (5) Duval I mag ing submitt ed bills
either without the s ignature of a super vising phy sician or with the sig nature of Raja Reddy , M.D., without his authority

or conse nt.

5m an ag er(s ), to th e ex te nt ne ces sa ry to m an ag e th e affa irs of Duv al Im ag in g LLC, in

th e be s t i n t e r e st s of it s m em be rs an d cred it or s.” (R.2 -1 80

, Ex. 10 at 26 of 11 7.)

Bas ed on th is ap po in tm en t, W arfi el d arg ue s he is en ti tl ed to im m un it y fo r hi s act io ns

whi le he was t he rece iv er.

Und er Fl or id a la w, ab so lu te im m un it y is “ affo rd ed to an y act oc cu rri ng du rin g 2

th e co ur se of a jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g,

. . . so lo ng as th e act ha s so m e rel at io n to th e

pr oc eed in g.” Levi n , 63 9 So

. 2d at 60 8. Si nc e Levi n , Fl or id a co ur ts ha ve ap pl ie d th is

im m un it y to cau se s of act io n a r i s i n g f r om a co ur t-o rd ered rece iv ers hi p. Am. Na t’l

Ti tl e & Escr ow of Fl a

. , I n c

. v

. Gua r. Ti tl e & Tr us t Co

. , 74 8 So

. 2d 10 54

, 10 55 -5 6

(Fl a

. 4 t h D C A 19 99 ). Ci ti ng th es e pr eced en ts

, W arfi el d arg ue s th at it m at te rs no t

whe th er he was a go od

, ba d, ne gl ig en t, or ev en co rru pt rece iv er. Acco rd i n g to

W arfi el d, as l o n g a s hi s co nd uc t as rece iv er bo re so m e rel at io n to a jud ic ia l

pr oc eed in g, t he n h e is ab so lu te ly im m un e. W e d is ag ree.

We agre e with Warfield that Florida law g overns whether he is entitled to rec eiver ship 2

immunit y in this diversity case

. Cf. Jack son v. Ga. Dep’ t of Transp.

, 16 F.3d 1573, 1580-81 (11th
Cir. 1994) (Carne s, J

., concur ring ) (expla in in g th a

t G e o r g ia law g overns defe nse of officia l immunit y in diversity action); Griesel v. Ha ml i n , 9 6 3 F.2d 338, 340 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that the
substantive law of the state g overns the applica b i l i t y o f i mmunity to state law claims); see also
Kohlrautz v. Oilmen P a r t i ci p ation Corp.

, 441 F.3d 827, 831-33 (9th Cir. 2006) (conc luding that
state, as oppos ed t o fede ral, substantive law of officia l immunit y for court-a ppointed rec eiver s applied to state-la

w ca use of a ction in diversity

suit).

6W hi le Fl or id a la w do es pr ov id e im m un it y to co ur t-a pp oi nt ed rece iv ers , th is

im m un it y do es no t pr ot ect a rece iv er fo r an y an d al l a c t i o ns th e rece iv er m ay ta ke

du rin g ap po in tm en t. To th e co nt rary, th e im m un it y on ly pr ot ect s th e rece iv er fo r act s

do ne “ pu rs ua nt to th e rece iv ers hi p an d th e or de r of au t h o r i t y to th e rece iv er.” Am.

Na t’l Ti tl e , 7 48 So . 2 d at 10 56 ; se e Mur th a v

. S t e ij sk al , 2 32 So . 2 d 53 , 5 5 (Fl a. 4t h

DCA 19 70 ) (“ [W] he n a rece iv er st ep s ou t s id e th e au th or it y gr an te d by th e co ur t or

do es th in gs in a pe rs on al cap aci ty an d no t as a rece iv er, th e rece iv er can no t cl ai m th e

pr ot ect io n of th e co ur t

. Thu s, if th e rece iv er st ep s ou ts id e th e au th or it y an d act s or

co nt ract s or is gu il ty of m is feas an ce or n e g l i ge nc e, th e rece iv er can be su ed as an

in di vi du al

. . . .” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Afte r al l, th e ve ry pu rp os e of th e im m un it y is th at

li ti ga ti on pa rti ci pa nt s, su ch as a rece iv er, “ m us t be free to en ga ge in un hi nd ered

co m m un ic at io n” an d “ be free to us e th ei r be st jud gm en t

. . .wit ho ut fear of ha vi ng to

de fen d th ei r act io ns in a su bs eq ue nt ci vi l act io n fo r m is co nd uc t.” Levi n , 63 9 So

. 2d

at 60 8. Tha t jus ti fic at io n do es no t ex is t whe n th e rece iv er is no lo ng er act in g as a

rece iv er.

Co ns id eri ng th at a rece iv er’s im m un it y un de r Fl or id a la w ha s it s li m it s , a n d

ta ki ng th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to St at e Farm

, as we m us t at th e su m

m ary

jud gm en t st ag e, th ere is a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er W arfi el d act ed

7in acco rd an ce wit h an d un de r pr ot ect io n of th e s t a t e

- c ou rt or de r ap po in ti ng hi m

rece iv er. St at e Farm ha s p ro du ced ev id en ce t ha t wo ul d s up po rt t he co nc lu si on th at

W arfi el d di d no t pe rfo rm th e du ti es se t fo rth in th e st at e-co ur t or de r, in pa rti cu la r:

( 1 ) Wa r fie ld di d no t ta ke co m pl et e po ss es si on of th e de sc rib ed pr op ert y as or de red

by th e co ur t, or at te m

pt to co nt ro l su ch pr op ert y ; (2 ) he ne ve r no ti fie d an y cred it or s,

ba nk s, ve nd or s, in su ran ce co mp an ie s, he al th care pr ov id ers or st at e reg ul at or y

ag en ci es th at he was th e co ur t-a pp oi nt ed rece iv er of Duv al Im ag in g; (3 ) he al lo wed

Duv al Im ag in g to co nt in ue to op erat e in vi ol at io n of Fl or id a la w, as th e co m pa ny was

no t accr ed it ed to e n g a ge in MRI se rv ic es , di d no t ha ve a pr op er m ed ic al di rect or ,

il le ga ll y us ed br ok ered MRI eq ui pm en t, an d su bm it te d fo rm s th at were no t si gn ed by

a m ed ic al di rect or or su pe rv is in g rad io lo gi st ; an d (4 ) W arfi el d es ta bl is he d a se pa rat e

ba nk acco un t to pr oc es s fu nd s fo r m em be r di st rib ut io ns , de po si te d $1 70 ,00 0 in to th e

acco un t, an d su bs eq ue nt ly di st rib ut ed th e m on ey to hi m se lf an d ot he rs , ev en th ou gh

th ere were ov er $2 00 ,00 0 in de fau lt jud gm en ts ou ts ta nd in g. W it h th is ev id en ce, St at e

Farm ha s crea te d an is su e of fact as to whe t h e r Wa r f i el d fai th fu ll y an d care fu ll y

carr ie d ou t th e st at e-co ur t or de r ap po in ti ng hi m rece iv er. W e acco rd in gl y affi rm th e

de ni al of Warfi el d’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

AFFIR MED.

8