## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07
- 1272 H ANSE L D E B A RT OL O a n d th e H
. M. D E B ART OLO, J R ., M .D ., S
. C. P EN S I ON P LA N an d T RUST, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. H EALT H S OUTH C ORPO RA T I ON, S URGI CARE OF J OLIE T, I NC . , a nd J OLIE T S URGI CAL C ENTE R, L I MI T ED P ARTN ERSHIP, D efend a nts-A pp ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C2542

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 10, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UNE 26, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f Judg e, a nd R IPPLE an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . H an se l D eB ar to lo, a su rg eo n, i s a l i m i te d pa r tn eri n a n a m bu lato r y s ur g i ca lc en te rmanage d by the ge nera lpartner, S urgi car e o fJ ol i et, Inc. W hen DeBartolo f ai l ed to c er ti fy tha t hi s pr ac ti ce a t th e fac ility m etth e t h re sh old m an d at ed by th e p ar tn er sh ip2 N o. 07
- 1272 ag r ee m en t, S ur g i ca r e no ti fi ed hi m that i t was e xe r ci sing a claus e in the a g reem en t all ow ing it to bu y out h is int erest . DeBarto l o b alke d and broughtthi s federa lact i on agains t Surgicare, i ts p aren t com p an y, an d the p artn ersh i p, c l ai m i ngtha t th e te r m o fthe pa r tn er sh ip ag r ee m en t re quir i ng hi m to co nd uct one- thi rd o fhi s s urgi cal pr ac ti ce a t th e ce nt erv iol at es fede r alc r i m i na ll aw a nd c an n otbe en for c ed . Th e d ist ric t c o u rtd ism iss ed th e s u it f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , but because thi s l i ti gat i on i s si m pl y a s ta te
- l aw c o nt r ac t di spu te b etwee n n o ndi ve r se pa r ti es , we vacat e th e j udg m en t an d r emand w i th i nstr ucti ons to d i sm i ss f orl ack ofsubj ect- m att er j ur i sdi ct i o n.
I. The M edi car e a nd M edi cai d Pati ent Pr ogr am Pro tect i on A c t o f 19 87, see Pub. L. N o. 10 0- 93, 10 1 S tat . 68 0, r eco difi ed and str en gthene d exi sting cr i m i nalpro hibi ti ons aga i nst payi ng physi ci ans to re fer pati ents f or m edi c al s er vi ces that m i ght b e co ver ed by M ed ica re o r M edi cai d. W hen C o n g r e s s d e b a t e d th i s l e g i s l a t i o n, h o we v e r , s o me heal thcar e pr ovi ders express ed conce rn th at i t s w ept t oo broad ly an d w ou ld crim inali ze even inn ocu ou s fee arra n ge m en ts . See M ed icare and State H ealth C are Pro gr am s: Fr aud and A buse; Cl ar i ficati on o fthe I ni ti al O IG Sa fe H arb or P ro vis ion s a n d E st ab lish m en t o f A d d iti onalS afe HarborPro vi si ons U nd er the A nti
- K i ckba ck Sta t u t e , 64 Fed
. Reg. 63,518, 63,518 ( N ov. 19, 1999); S. R EP . N o. 10 0-1 09 , at 2 7 (1 98 7), as repr i nt e d i n 1987 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 68 2, 70 7- 08. Consequentl y, the up d atedN o. 07
- 1272 3 st at u te , see42 U
. S. C. § 1 320a -7b (b ), co m m onl y know n as th e A n ti-K ic kb a c k A c t, s e eM cNuttex re l
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haleyvil leM ed. Supplie s, Inc. , 423 F. 3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 20 05 ) , i nc l ude s a “s afe ha rbo r ” ex cept i o n fo ra ny paym ent p ra cti ce a uthor i zed bythe Se cre tar y o fH eal th an d H u m an Ser vic es , see Pu b. L
. N o. 100-93, § 14(a), (b)(3), 101 St at. 68 0 ( 1987 ) ( cod ified at 42 U
. S. C. § 1 320a
7b(b)(3)( E ))
. I n 199 9 the S ecr etary of H H S used that safe- harbo r au th ority to p erm it som e pa ym e n t s from am bu latory su rg ica l ce n te rs to qu ali fied p h ys icia n -in ve st or s. See M edi car e a nd S tat e H eal th Care Pro gr am s, 64 Fe d. Reg. a t6 3 , 5 3 4 ( n o w c o d i f i e d a t4 2 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 1
. 9 5 2 ( r ) )
. A mbul ato rysur gi calcent er s a re non- hospi talf aci l i ti es eq uip p ed w ith op erating an d recovery room s w he re physi ci ans per f or m o ut p atie nt sur ger i es and otherpro c ed u re s. See Am bul at o r y S ur g ery Ce nt erAss o ci at i o n, Freq ue nt ly A sked Qu estions A bou t A m bu latory Surgery Centers , http: // asca sso ci ati on.o rg/f aqs/ f aqabouta scs/( l ast vi si ted M ay 28 , 2 009)
. H H S w as concerned that physi ci an own er shi p ofam bul atory s urgi calcent er s co uld l ead to vi o l a t i o ns o fthe Ant i
- Ki c kb a c kAc tb e c a us e the p ro m i se ofhi gherdi vi dend s ( w hi ch w oul d presum abl y b e r o ug hl y pr o po r ti o na lt o the numbe ro fpatients us i ngthe ce nt er ) c o ul d pr o vi de a fi na nc i ali nc en ti ve f o rphy si ci an ow n er s t o re fer p at i e n t s t o th e c en te r. SeeM edi ca r e an d St ate H eal th Care Pro gr am s, 64Fe d. Reg. a t 6 3, 536- 37. I nd e e d , a f a c i l i t y mi g h te v e n o ffe rs h a r e s t o p h y s i c i an s preci sel y s o that i t co uld buy re fer ra l s thro ugh the gui se of d ivid en d s. Id. at 63,536. A t th e sam e t im e , h ow ever, H H S also ackn ow ledge d that am bu latory surgical cent ers4 N o. 07
- 1272 coul d l egi ti m ate l y s er ve a s an extensi on o fthe offi ce pract i ce o fphysi ci ans who w oul d i nvestf orpra c tical re aso ns, i ncl ud in g p h ysi calpro xi m i ty and a desi re to m ain ta inqu alit y c on tr ol, an d for th os e in ve stor- physi ci ans, th e ris k t h at d ivid en d s w ou ld ind u c e im p ro p er refe rra ls w as l ow . Id. a t 63,534-37. T he Secretary of H H S therefore cra fted sa fe- harbo r condi ti ons desi gned to autho ri ze am bul ato rysur gi cal c enter s t o m ake paym ents to physi ci an- i nvest or s who use the ce n teras an e xtensi on of th eir offic e p ra c tic e. Id. Fourcat ego ri es ofam bul ato rysur gi calcent er s r ecei ved safe- harbo r sta tus, ea ch w i th sl i gh tly differ ent r equi re m en ts . See42 C. F. R. § 1001
. 952( r) ( 1)

- ( 4)
. The part i es ag r ee that t he f ac i l i tyi n J o l i et, I l l i no i s, o wned b y the partner shi p and m anage d by Surg i car e is a m ult i
- speci al ty cente r and, hence, that 42 C.F
. R. § 1001
. 952( r) ( 3) p ro vid es the r el evantsa fe harbor. That se cti on r ese rv es safeha rbo rs ta tu s f o rpa y m en ts to p hy si ci an - o wner s who earn at lea st one- thi rd o fthei r m edi cali ncom e fro m per f o r m i ngM edi ca r e- appr o ve d pr o ce dur es a nd who per f o r m a t l ea sto ne - th i r d o ftho se pr o ce dur es a t th e c en te r. Id. § 1 00 1. 95 2( r ) ( 3) ( i i ) , ( i i i ) , ( r ) ( 5)
. The se t wo thr es hol ds, co l l ecti vel y know n as the “ one- thi rd/o ne- thi rd” t est, ar e desi gned to ensur e that the physi ci an- i nvest oruses the cen teras an e xtensi on o fhi s o r her offi ce pr acti ce, and not a s a n engine fo r il l ega lr efer ra l

-base d com pensatio n . SeeM edi car e a nd S tat e Heal th Care Pro gr am s, 64 Fed. Reg. at63 , 534- 35. I n 200 4 th e ow ners o fthe J ol i et f aci l i ty soughtshel ter i n thi s s afe harborand a m en ded thei r partner shi p agr ee-N o. 07
- 1272 5

m en t t o re q u ire th at p h ys icia n -in ve st or s c e r tify an n u ally that they ar e m eet i ng the “one- thi rd/o ne- thi rd ” t est . Anothe ram en dm en t co m pel l ed no nc o m pl i an t phy si ci an i nvest or s t o sel lo ut to S urgi car e o r other partner s. DeBa r to l o ha d b o ug hti nt o the pa r tn er sh i p ( th r o ug h a tru st h e co ntro l s) i n 198 1 for$2 50, 000, and had practi ced at th e c en te r for m an y y ea rs . Th en in 2 00 1 h e l o s t h is su rg ica l p r ivile ge s a t t h e c en te r an d n ev er ag ain perf or m ed a pr oce du re ther e. H e s ti l lr ecei ved di vi dend s, althou gh, i nc lud ing $91,000 in 2004 , b ut a fter th e pa rtne rsh ip agreem en t w a s a m en d ed , he w as u na ble to certify th athi s pr ac ti ce met th e “o ne - th i r d/one-thi r d” te st . And w h en D eB ar to lo d id n otvo u c h for h is safe -h arb or eligib ili ty, S urgi car e e xerci sed i ts ri ght t o buy o ut hi s inter est and s ent hi m a check re prese nti ng the cos t of hi s s h ares and his por ti on o fundist ributed div i dend s. DeB ar tol o re fused t he m oneyand i ni ti ate d thi s a cti on i n fe d e r a lc o u r tf o rd e c l a r a t o r y a n d i nj u n c t i v e r e l i e f
. He ar gue d tha t th e 20 04 a m en dm en t r equi r i ngphy si ci an i nvest or s t o conduct one- thi rd o fthe i r surg i calprac ti ce at the c enter, al though wri tte n to tr ack the s afe- harbo r re gu lat ion, see42 C. F. R. § 100 1. 952( r) ( 3) ( i i i ) , cannotbe re conci l ed w i th a differ en t s afe- harbo r l i m i tat i on, wh i ch m an dat es tha t th e “ te r m s o n whi cha n inv es tment i nter e s ti s o ffe r e d t o a n i nv e s t o rmus tn o tb e r e l a t e d t o the pr evio u s o r expected vo l um e o fr efer ra l s, se rv i ces furni shed, or the am ou n t o f bu sin es s o th er w i se gener ate d fr om thati nvest or to the enti ty, ” i d. § 1 001. 952( r) ( 3) ( i ). Obser vi ng tha t co ntra ct l aw m ake s unenfo rce abl e a ny ag re em ent forthe perf or m ance o f an i l l ega lact, DeBarto l o asked the di str i ct c ourtto6 N o. 07
- 1272 decl ar e the am endm ents vo id in vi ew o fthi s per cei ved c on flict, see 28 U
. S. C. § 2 201, and enj oi n Sur gi car e fro m pu rchas i ng hi s s ha re s. A s forthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j uri sdict i on, DeBarto l o ci ted 28 U
. S. C. § 1 331 and asse rt ed that hi s l aw sui t pos es “a substa nti alfedera lquesti on because the c ou rti s r equi re d to rul e o n the l ega l i ty of an a gr eem ent that, as appli ed by the Defendants, vio lat es th e fe d er al A n ti-K ickb ac k St at u te .” Sur gi car e a nd the othe r partner s di d not chal l enge DeB ar tol o’ s invocat i on o ffedera lj uri sdic ti on a nd ar gued i nstea d that the co m p lain t shoul d be di sm i sse d fo r f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m . The defendan ts r eas oned that DeBa r to l o , apr i va te l i ti g an t, was s ee k i ngt o enf o r ce the A nti
- K i ckba ck A ct, a cri m i na l s tatute, and theyi nsi ste d that Co ng r e s s ha d no t a utho r i z e d a pr i v a t e r i g ht o f acti on. M or eov er, the defe nd ants conte nd ed, the 2004 amen d me n t s t o th e p a r tn e r s h i p a g r e e me n ta r e c o nsis te n t w i t h th e s afe h arb or . D eB ar to lo re p lied th at, alth ou g h h e in d ee d se ek s a ru lin g t h at th e p ar tn er sh ip agr eem ent’ s pra cti ce thres hol d i s i l l ega l, he i s no t p u rs u in g a p r i va te righ t o f ac tio n u n d er th e A n tiK ickb ac k A c t: h e s im p ly w an ts th e d ist ric t cou rtto inv alidat e th e 20 04 a m en dm en ts t o the pa r tn er sh i p a g r ee m ent on the gr ound that g i vi ng effect to the pr acti ce thres hold w oul d vi ol ate the sta tute. The dis tr i ct courth eeded the defe nd ants and construed DeB ar tol o’ s s uitas an atte m pt at pri vate enf or cem ent o f th e An ti- K ic kba ckAct
. Re l y i ngo n We s tAl l i s M e m or i al Hospit a l, Inc. v. B o w en , 852 F.2d 251 , 255 (7th C ir. 1988), w hi ch hol ds that Congre ss did notautho ri ze privateN o. 07
- 1272 7
en forcem en t w he n it en acte d th e statu te, th e d istri ct cou rt c o n c l u d e d th a tD e B a r t o l o ’ s s u i tf a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m. The c ou rtad d ed , h o w ev er , th at it w as sk ep tic al w h et h er it ev en p os se ss ed su bj ec t-m at te r j u ri s d i c tio n be c au se , in the cour t’ s vi ew , the l aw sui t ess enti al l y i s a sta te -l aw c on tr ac t d isp u te be tw ee n p ar tie s w h o a re m os tly ci ti zens ofI l l i noi s.
II. I n b riefi ng thi s a pp eal, bo th par ti es i ncl ud ed j uri sdic

tional statem en ts assert ing tha t the d is t rict court po s s e s s e d s ubj e c t
- mat t e rj ur i s di c t i o n b e c a us e , the y s a i d, DeB arto lo’ s l aw sui t “ ar i ses under” the A nti
- K i ckba ck A c t, a fe d er al la w . On th e m er its , ho w ev er , D eB ar to lo ar gu ed th at th e d ist ric t c ou rth a d m isc on st ru ed h is s u it as an at tem pt at pri vate enforc em ent o fthatst atute w h en i nstea d he w anted the co urt to apply pri nci ple s ofst ate contra ct l aw to i nval i date the 20 04 am endm ents to the pa r tn er sh i p a g r ee m en t. F o rthe i rpa rt, the de fen dants acknow l edged the c ou rt ’ s uncer tainty about i ts su b j ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on but never thel ess co ntended th atthe j udg m en t sh o uld be a ffi r m ed be ca us e th e cour t’ s m er i ts anal ysi s i s co rr ect. The pa r ti es may be c o nt en t to a ss um e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t had j ur i sdi ct i o n t o r es o l ve thi s di spu te , b ut we a r e no t. S ubj ec t- m at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n i s not a n i ss ue th atc anbe br us he d a si de o rs at i sfi ed bya g r ee m en t b et w ee n th e litig an ts , s e eAr b augh v. Y & HCorp. , 546 U
. S. 500, 514 (2006); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tit t j ung, 23 5 F
. 3d 330, 33 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) , a nd s o a t o r ala r g um en t we pr es se d the8 N o. 07
- 1272 parti es to expla i n w hy this la w sui t be l ongs i n federa l c ou rt . N eit h er sid e h as ev er as se rt ed th at j u ris d ict ion is supp l i ed by the di ver si ty sta tute orb y so m e o ther sour ce a part fro m 28 U
. S. C. § 13 31 . T hat j uri sdic ti onal p r o v isio n em p ow er s d ist ric t c ou rt s t o a dj u d ica te civ il m at te rs a r i sin g u n d er fed er al la w , bu t t h e p ar tie s c ou ld not eve n agr ee about the nature ofthe cl ai m pre sente d by D eB ar to lo’s l aw sui t. A t a rg um ent DeBart ol o, perhaps ho p in g to sal vage a seco nd chance i n sta te c ourtbysk i rt i ng an affi rm ance o n the m er i ts, qui ckly c on c ed ed th at fed er a l ju ris d ict ion ov er h is law su it is du b i o us b e c a us e , h e s a y s , i ti s a c o nt r a c tdi s pute between non-d iverse part i es. In a pos t- ar gum ent s ubm i ssi on DeBart ol o h as gone furtherand now concedes that nei therdoes this s tat e- l aw co ntra ct a cti on nece ssar i l y r ai se a s ubstanti aland dis pu ted q u est i on o fl aw co n c e r n i n gth e An t i
- Ki c kb a c kAc twh i c h wo u l d d e mand re so lu t i on in a fed er al for u m . See E m pireHealthchoice Ass uranc e, Inc . v. M cVe igh , 547 U
. S. 677, 700-01 (2006 ); Grab l e & Son s M e t al Prod s . , Inc . v. D ar ue En g’g & M fg. , 54 5 U
. S. 3 08, 315 -16 (2005); Ben ne t t v. Sou t hwe s t Air l i ne s Co. , 48 4 F
. 3d 90 7, 910-11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The de fen dan ts , o n the ot h er h an d , in sis t t h at th eir d isp u te w ith D eB ar to lo is n ota c on tr ac t a c tio n atall. Ra th er , th ey st ill m a i n t a in th at D eB ar to lo is t ry in g t o p riv at ely en for c e t h e A n tiK ickbac k A ct an d th a t, a lthou gh m isguid ed , this eff ort ra i ses a cl ai m under federa ll aw . DeBart olo, theysa y, has s i m plyse i zed t he o pp or tuni ty to change hi s l ega l theo ryto o ne under s tat e co ntra ct l aw so as to fr us tr at e fede r alj ur i sdi ct i o n. I n f ac t, De Bar to l o ’ s po si ti o n h as no t sh i fted
. Aga i n a nd ag ain

— i n re sponse t o the defendants’ m oti on t o dism i ss,N o. 07
- 1272 9 i n h i s appe l l at e br i ef s, a nd ata r g um en t

— DeB ar tol o has i ns i s t e d tha t the Ant i
- Ki c kb a c k Act r e nd e r s the 20 04 am en d m en ts to th e p ar tn er sh ip ag re em en t u n en for c ea b le an d t hu s p rovide s him w ith a d efense to Surgicare’s i nvocat i on of the am ended a gree m en t’s prac ti ce th r e s h old to force him to l iqu idat e his pa rtne rship i nt erest . H e has co n sist entl y m aintai ned that hi s s uiti s no t a n att em pt at pri vate enf or cem ent o fthe A nti-K i ckba ck A ct, an d w e a gr ee w ith D eB ar to lo th at th is lit i g a t ion is sim p ly a s tat e- l aw co ntra ct dispute. S i m plyput, the defe nd ants w an t t o e n for c e t h e 2 00 4 a m en d m en ts to th e p ar tn er sh ip ag r ee m en t ag ains t DeBa r to l o , a nd he wan ts to pr ev en t th em fr o m do i ngs o . I t i s th e i m po r t ofthe se c o m pet i ng goa l s that the d efendants fai lto app re ci ate ; Surgi car e, not DeB ar tol o, pre ci pit ate d thi s di spute wh en ittr i ed to f or ce DeB ar tol o to exi t the partner shi p, and i t i s the defendants w ho ar e unw i l l i ng to co untenance DeBart ol o’ s r efusalto ac ce pt S ur g i ca r e’ s m o ne y a nd r el i nqui shhi s s ta k e i n the J ol i et f aci l i ty. A nd r ather t h an w ai t forthe defe nd ants to su e t o e n for c e t h eir as se rt ed co n tr ac tu al rig h t t o b u y h im o ut, De Bar to l o t o o kpr ee m pti ve a ct i o n. T h e D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g me n tAc t, 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 0 1 , a l l o ws a par ty l i ke DeB ar tol o w ho e xpects t o eve ntual l y b e su ed, t o de te r m i ne h is ri g ht s an d l i ab i l i ti es wi th o ut w ai ti ng f orhi s a dvers ar y, the presum pti ve pla in ti ff, to bring sui t. Pu b
. S e r v. Co m m ’ n v . W yc of f Co
. , 34 4 U.S
. 23 7, 24 8 (1 95 2); C eres Term inals, Inc. v. Indus. Co m m ’n o f Ill
. , 53 F. 3d 1 83 , 185 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95)
. That a ct, however, i s no t a n i ndep en den t g r an t o ffede r als ubj ec t- m at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n, so j ur i sdi ct i o n depe nds upo n th e na tu r e o f th e an tic ip at ed cla im s. Sam uel C
. Johnson 1988 Trus t v. B ayfie ld10 N o. 07
- 1272 C ounty, 52 0 F
. 3d 822, 82 7- 28 ( 7th C i r. 2008)
. T hus, al though th e pr ese nce o r abse nce o fa federa lquesti on norm ally tu rns on an ex a m ination of the face of the p lai nt iff’ s c om p lain t, Nelson v. Stew a rt, 422 F .3 d 4 63, 466 ( 7th Cir. 20 05 ), in an ac tio n for d ec lar at or y jud gm en t t h e p os iti ons ofthe p ar ti es ar e r eve rs ed: the decl ar ato ry j u d gm en t p lain tiff w ou ld h av e b ee n th e d efe n d an t in th e an ti ci pat ed su i t whos e ch ar ac te rde te r m i ne s th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s jur isd ict ion, e . g., C oun ty M at e r i al s Corp. v. A lla n B lo ckC o rp . , 502 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct
. 1709 (2008); Ne. Ill. R eg’l C o m m uter R. R. Corp. v. Hoey F ar i na & D o w nes , 2 12 F. 3d 1010 , 10 14 (7t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) ; C ardtoons, L. C
. v. M ajor Le ague B aseb all P layers A ss ’n , 95 F. 3d 959, 96 4 ( 10th Cir
. 19 96)
. Consequentl y, DeBarto l o’ s co m pla i nt, w h ich i n vo ke s t h e A n tiK i ckba ck A ct a s a d efense to h i s par tner s’ anti ci pated sta tel aw c o nt r ac t ac ti o n t o e nf o r ce the i rr i g ht s unde rthe partner shi p agr eem ent, cannotbe a s ourc e o ffedera l j uri sdic ti on unl ess DeB ar tol o’ s s tatutor y defense ra i ses a p u r e q u es tio n of fed er al la w of th e c alib er atst ak e in G rab le& Sons M et al Products, Inc. , 545 U
. S. 308 (2005), w h ich , eve n th e d efe n d an ts co n c ed e, it d oe s n ot . See Fra nc hise Ta x B d. v. C o nstr. L a bo rers V a ca tio n Trust, 463 U
. S. 1, 16 ( 1983 ) ; W

yc of f Co
. , 34 4 U.S
. at24 8; Sa m ue l C. Johns on 19 88 Trust, 52 0 F.3d at 8 2 7
- 2 8; Ne. Il l
. Reg’ l Co mm u t e rR. R. Corp
. , 2 1 2 F
. 3 d a t 1 0 1 4
. Aft e r a l l, a fe de r a l def ense do es no t es tabl i shfede r al

- que st i o n j ur i sdi ct i o n. M er re ll D ow Phar m . Inc . v. Thom ps on , 478 U .S. 80 4, 80 8 (1 98 6); Blue Cros s Blu eSh i e l d of

Il l
. v. Cr uz , 49 5 F
. 3d 5 10 , 512 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 7)
. In th e con tex t of th is action for a d eclaratory j u d g me n t, th e r e f o r e , the al l e g a t i o n s i n D e B a r t o l o ’ s c o m-N o. 07
- 1272 11 p lain t m u st d em on st ra te t h a t t h e d efe n d an ts co u ld file a fe d er al c laim
. See Stu a rt Weitz m a n, LL Cv. M icro co m pu ter R es . , Inc. , 542 F .3 d 8 5 9, 862 (11th Cir. 2008); Co unty M at e r i al s Corp. , 50 2 F
. 3d at 734; R o drig uez v. Tenn . Lab o rers He al t h & We l

f areFu nd, 463 F. 3d 473, 47 6- 77 ( 6th Ci r. 20 06); Ne . Il l
. Reg’ l C om m ut e rR. R. Corp. , 21 2 F
. 3d at 1014
. The defen dan ts , ho wev er, ha ve no t at te m pte d t o i den ti fy a ny federa lcl ai m they m igh t hav e br ought, and w e ca n thi nk o fnone. DeBarto l o’ s l aw sui t has bel onge d i n sta te c ou rtall alo n g, an d it m u st b e p u rs u ed in t h at foru m if at all.
III. A ccord in gl y, we V ACATE the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r dera nd R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to dism i ss f orlac k o fsubj ectm at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n.

6- 26- 09