[ DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 10916 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 1:12

- cv - 00128

- AT THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, TENNESSEE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATIO N, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, EL PASO COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, DR. CARMEN KAVALI, M.D., BRIAN MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

versus CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA HEALTH CORPORATION , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Case: 13-10916 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 1 of 42 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________ (February 20, 2014)

Before WILSON , ANDERSO N and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: The American Medical Association, along with 11 other medical associations and societies, Dr. Carmen Kavali, and Brian Mullins ( collectively, Appellants), appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint. The class action complaint against Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., CIGNA Corporation, and CIGNA Health Corporation (collectively, CIGNA), alleged violations of the Employme nt Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) arising from improper reimbursement payments for out

- of

- network healthcare services. CIGNA was a defendant in In re Managed Care Litigation , consolidated in
MDL

- 1334 before the Honorable Federico Moreno i n the United States District Court for th e Southern District of Florida. The Managed Care Litigation action involved a suit against a number of healthcare companies, including CIGNA, alleging t he companies had overbilled their customers for treatment. CI GNA eventually reached settlement s with a group of physician providers and a gro up of

Case: 13-10916 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 2 of 43 non - physician providers. The Southern District of Florida approved each of these settlements, which enjoined the providers from filing suit against the defendan ts in
any jurisdiction based on “Released Claims , ” as defined in the settlement agreements. On January 12, 2012, Appellants filed the complaint at issue in this appeal

. On January 10, 2013, in the In re Managed Care Litigation action, Judge Moreno granted CIGNA ’s motion to enjoin Appellants’ ERISA claim s filed in the instant action. Judge Moreno found that even plaintiffs like the American Medical Association, who were not signatories to the settlement agreements, were “Releasing Parties” because they were asse rting claims on behalf of C IGNA settlement class members. Judge Moreno concluded that Appellants’ ERISA claims were within the definition of “Released Claims” in the settlement agreements
and directed Appellants to withdraw their claims in the instant mat ter within 20 days of his order. Judge Moreno warned that failure to comply would result in a finding of contempt against Appellants, but he did not make a finding of contempt or impose
sanctions at that time . On February 4, 2013, the district court dism issed Appellants’ complaint based on Judge Moreno’s January 10, 2013 ord er. The district court stated , “[i]n the

Case: 13-10916 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 3 of 44 absence of reversal upon appeal or rehearing, this Court must respect Judge Moreno’s injunction and judicial determination that Plaintiffs’ cl aims are barred.” On appeal, Appellants claim the district court’s dismissal of their complaint constituted legal error because Appellants cannot appeal Judge Moreno’s injunction until Judge Moreno enters a finding of contempt and sanctions. And, accor ding to Appellants, the district court’s dismissal has circumvented their ability to have a finding of contempt and sanctions entered against them before Judge Moreno. However, it wa s within the district court’s discretion to dismiss a complaint filed in violation of a sister court’s injunction and order

. See, e.g., Martin

- Trigona v. Shaw , 986 F.2d 1384, 1387

- 88 (11th Cir. 1993) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a suit based on deference to a sister court’s injunction). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ complaint. AFFIRMED. Case: 13-10916 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 4 of 4