Filed: Jun. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2020
Summary: Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 19-10414; 19-11032 _ D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-61825-JIC PLANTATION OPEN MRI, LLC, a/a/o JORGE HIDALGO, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (June 15, 2020) Before WILSON, GRANT,
Summary: Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 19-10414; 19-11032 _ D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-61825-JIC PLANTATION OPEN MRI, LLC, a/a/o JORGE HIDALGO, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (June 15, 2020) Before WILSON, GRANT, ..
More
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 19-10414; 19-11032
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-61825-JIC
PLANTATION OPEN MRI, LLC, a/a/o JORGE HIDALGO,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 15, 2020)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plantation Open MRI, LLC brought this class action against Infinity Auto
Insurance Company for breach of contract. Due to some interesting choices by
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Plantation’s lawyer, the district court sanctioned both the lawyer and the company.
The court also granted Infinity’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On
appeal, Plantation challenges both rulings. We detect no error and affirm.
I.
This case started out as a bland contract case, with Plantation (a medical
services provider) claiming that Infinity had underpaid its insureds’ personal injury
protection benefits. But things soon got messy. In its initial disclosures,
Plantation’s lawyer said that “the parties have stipulated that there is only a
question of law that governs the dispute.” The problem was that Infinity never
stipulated to that, a point it made sure to flag for Plantation. Rather than walk back
the false claim, Plantation doubled down and actually asked the district court to
sanction Infinity under Rule 11 for denying the stipulation.
Troubled by these shenanigans, the district court held a hearing to decide if
Plantation and its attorney should be sanctioned. The court found that no
stipulation existed. As the court put it, “there was ample evidence of various
agreements made between the parties in individual (non-class action) state court”
cases—but no testimony that Infinity stipulated that this case involved only a legal
question. In light of these findings, the court denied Plantation’s motion for
sanctions, and the court sanctioned Plantation “for knowingly or recklessly filing a
completely frivolous motion for sanctions.” The sanction, an award of attorney’s
2
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 3 of 6
fees to Infinity, was grounded on both the court’s inherent authority and Rule
11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Infinity later moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The
contract specified that reimbursement for “medical expenses shall be limited to and
shall not exceed 80% of the schedule of maximum charges” set by Florida law.
Yet the complaint alleged that Infinity had to provide 100% coverage of reasonable
medical charges. Given the contract’s clear language to the contrary, the court
granted Infinity’s motion to dismiss. Plantation moved for post-judgment relief,
which the court denied. Plantation now appeals.
II.
We review “all aspects of a district court’s Rule 11 determination” for an
abuse of discretion. Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc.,
750 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th
Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). That means that “we must affirm unless we find that
the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal
standard.” Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc.,
500 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). We review de novo both the dismissal of a complaint
and the interpretation of a contract. K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.,
931
F.3d 1041, 1043 (11th Cir. 2019); Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC,
933 F.3d 1286,
1293 (11th Cir. 2019).
3
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 4 of 6
III.
A.
We turn first to the district court’s award of attorney’s fees, an award based
on Rule 11(c)(2) and the court’s inherent power. “If any one of the sources of
authority invoked by the district court provides a sound basis for the sanctions, we
must affirm the sanctions order.” Amlong &
Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1238. Both
sources are valid here.
A motion for Rule 11 sanctions comes with some risk. “If warranted, the
court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). In other words,
the “motion for sanctions is itself subject to the requirements of the rule and can
lead to sanctions.”
Smith, 750 F.3d at 1260 (citation omitted). So “when a party
files a Rule 11 motion for an improper purpose, the court may award fees to the
target of the motion.”
Id.
That is what happened below. Through its attorney, Plantation represented
that the parties had stipulated to something when no stipulation existed—and then
filed a Rule 11 motion to punish Infinity for opposing the false claim. 1 The court
rejected Plantation’s frivolous request—which the court found was made in bad
1
Although Plantation later tried to withdraw its motion, it did so for procedural reasons. It stood
by its “substantive assertions” and asked the court to “consider invoking its inherent authority in
lieu of Rule 11.”
4
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 5 of 6
faith—and by no means did the court abuse its discretion in awarding to Infinity
the attorney’s fees it incurred during the Rule 11 proceedings.
For the same reason, the court’s inherent power also justifies the sanction.
“The key to unlocking a court’s inherent power is a finding of bad faith.”
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.,
851 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir.
2017). Such a finding is “warranted where an attorney knowingly or recklessly
raises a frivolous argument.” Barnes v. Dalton,
158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.
1998) (citation omitted). That is exactly what the district court found, and
reasonably so.
B.
Nor did the court err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
At the heart of the complaint is a single allegation: Infinity’s contract was at least
ambiguous about whether the insurer would cover 100% of reasonable medical
expenses. Not at all. The contract said that coverage for “medical expenses shall
be limited to and shall not exceed 80% of the schedule of maximum charges” set
by Florida law.
As Plantation’s only support for its full-coverage reading, it points to
language in the section entitled “Limits of Liability”—hardly a place one would
expect to find an expansion of coverage. And an expansion of coverage is
nowhere to be found. Plantation leans heavily on a sentence in the contract
5
Case: 19-10414 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 6 of 6
explaining that the total limit of benefits is “based on the difference between such
deductible amount and the total amount of all loss and expense incurred.” By
Plantation’s lights, the sentence means that an insured need only pay a deductible,
leaving Infinity to cover the rest of the medical bill. But the contract does not say
that Infinity’s coverage is the difference between the deductible and total medical
expense; it says the coverage is “based on” that difference. The contract, like the
statutory scheme it follows, first applies the deductible to the medical bill and only
then requires Infinity to cover 80% of what is leftover. See Fla. Stat.
§§ 627.739(2), 627.736(1)(a). See generally, Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Fla.
Hosp. Med. Ctr.,
260 So. 3d 219, 223–224 (Fla. 2018) (explaining statutory
scheme). No ambiguity exists: the contract simply does not support Plantation’s
reading.
IV.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
6