Opinion ID: 151228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Partial Summary Judgment Appeal

Text: The district court decided in its grant of partial summary judgment that the Provider Agreements are valid and enforceable under Louisiana law notwithstanding the fee schedule in the LWCA and the notice requirements in the AWPA. In the partial summary judgment appeal, the Providers argue that the district court should have abstained from hearing the case because of the pendency of multiple claims in the OWC and Louisiana state courts and the importance of the state law issues to Louisiana. The Providers argue in the alternative that we should certify the merits of the partial summary judgment to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Providers do not argue that we should reverse the district court on the merits of the district court’s partial summary judgment. We only have jurisdiction to consider the claim certified by the district court. See United Indus. v. EIMCO Process Equip. Co., 61 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding that this Court has “no jurisdiction to consider orders of the district court outside the scope of certification”). Here, the district court certified the Liberty Entities’ declaratory judgment claims as final under Rule 54(b), finding the Provider Agreements valid under Louisiana law. The abstention 6 Case: 09-30733 Document: 00511181126 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Nos. 09-30733 & 09-30958 issues argued by the Providers are relevant to claims still pending before the district court, and the parties may obtain review of these issues from a future panel of this Court upon final resolution of the litigation. We have no appellate jurisdiction over the abstention issues still pending before the district court. However, we have jurisdiction to consider the Providers’ request for certification to the Louisiana Supreme Court because the Providers’ request relates only to the claim certified by the district court under Rule 54(b). “[T]he decision of whether to certify a question lies within our sound discretion.” Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 487 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 283 F.3d 650, 656 (5th Cir. 2002)). “[T]he absence of a definitive answer from the state supreme court on a particular question is not sufficient to warrant certification.” Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Assoc., Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1247 (5th Cir. 1997). We decline to certify the question of whether the Provider Agreements are valid and enforceable under the AWPA and the LWCA. The Providers only briefly discuss the merits of the district court’s summary judgment, citing a