Filed: May 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2513 _ DR. HARSHAD C. PATEL, Appellant v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INSURANCE; ALLSTATE INSURANCE JOHN DOES 1-10; STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY; STATE FARM JOHN DOES 1-10; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COM
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2513 _ DR. HARSHAD C. PATEL, Appellant v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INSURANCE; ALLSTATE INSURANCE JOHN DOES 1-10; STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY; STATE FARM JOHN DOES 1-10; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-2513
_____________
DR. HARSHAD C. PATEL,
Appellant
v.
ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY;
ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY;
ENCOMPASS INSURANCE;
ALLSTATE INSURANCE JOHN DOES 1-10;
STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY;
STATE FARM JOHN DOES 1-10;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN DOES 1-10;
ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY;
CHRISTOPHER IU, in his official capacity as commissioner of
New Jersey Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor;
ABC INSURANCE COMPANIES 1-50;
JOHN DOES 1-50
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-07549)
District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 29, 2016
______________
Before: VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 3, 2016)
_____________
OPINION*
_____________
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Dr. Harshad Patel commenced this action alleging that the Office of the
New Jersey Attorney General and the Office of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud
Prosecutor improperly “outsourced” state criminal investigations to insurance companies.
Because of this alleged outsourcing, Dr. Patel contends that he was deprived of rights
secured by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The
District Court dismissed Dr. Patel’s Complaint with prejudice because he had not alleged
any concrete injury as a result of the purported “outsourcing” of the prosecutorial
function. We agree that dismissal was warranted, but will vacate the dismissal with
prejudice and direct that the dismissal be made “without prejudice.”
I.
We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural
history of this case. Accordingly, we set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis.
Dr. Patel brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the New Jersey Attorney General, the New
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
2
Jersey Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor (“OIFP”), and the Special Investigations
Units of several private insurance companies (“SIUs”) (collectively “Defendants” or
“Appellees”). Specifically, Dr. Patel contends that Appellees deprived him of his
constitutional rights because the Attorney General and OIFP allegedly used the New
Jersey Insurance Fraud Protection Act (“IFPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:33A–1, et seq., to
“outsource” criminal investigations to the SIUs.
According to Dr. Patel, this “outsourcing” implicates constitutional concerns
because the SIUs have a vested economic interest in the prosecution of insurance fraud.
Dr. Patel asserts that the alleged criminal investigations conducted by SIUs effectively
circumvent “the protections afforded by the United States and New Jersey Constitutions
in connection with self-incrimination, the right to counsel, the requirement under New
Jersey law to provide notice to a target of a criminal investigation, and the requirement to
convene a grand jury.” Appellant’s Br. 2 (citation omitted). In order to support his
claims, Dr. Patel relies on Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S.
787 (1987), to argue that “the appointment of an interested investigator, such as the
Insurance Company SIUs, is per se improper[.]” Appellant’s Br. 8 (citation omitted).
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to
state a claim. On May 18, 2015, the District Court heard argument on the motions and
issued an oral opinion finding that it lacked jurisdiction because Dr. Patel had not
suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. The District Court formalized its
3
ruling by way of an order—entered on May 19, 2015—granting the Defendants’ motions
to dismiss, and dismissing Dr. Patel’s Complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.
II.
This Court exercises plenary review over District Court orders dismissing a
complaint for lack of standing. N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr. v. Aetna, Inc., 801 F.3d 369,
371 (3d Cir. 2015). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing” the elements of standing and “each element must be supported in the same
way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the
manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (citations omitted). “Thus, ‘when
standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, we accept as true all material
allegations in the complaint, and . . . construe the complaint in favor of the complaining
party.’” FOCUS v. Allegheny Cty. Court of Common Pleas,
75 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir.
1996) (quoting Pennell v. City of San Jose,
485 U.S. 1, 7 (1988) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
III.
The question before us is whether the allegations sustain Dr. Patel’s standing to
bring this lawsuit. We find that Dr. Patel’s allegations are insufficient, and that the
District Court correctly found that Dr. Patel lacks standing to bring this action.
“No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of
government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases
4
or controversies.” Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976) (citing
Flast v. Cohen,
392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). One of the most important justiciability
doctrines is that “a litigant have ‘standing’ to invoke the power of a federal court.” In re
Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action,
678 F.3d 235, 244 (3d
Cir. 2012) (quoting Allen v. Wright,
468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-
fact; (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of;
and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Susan
B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014); Finkelman v. Nat'l Football
League,
810 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2016). Of these three required elements for standing,
“the injury-in-fact element is often determinative.” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of
Readington,
555 F.3d 131, 138 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Here also, the injury-
in-fact element is determinative.
For there to be an injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must claim “the invasion of a concrete
and particularized legally protected interest” resulting in harm “that is actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d
247, 278 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 1738
(2015). To be “concrete,” an injury must be “real, or distinct and palpable, as opposed to
merely abstract.” N.J. Physicians, Inc. v. President of the United States,
653 F.3d 234,
238 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983), and
Whitmore v. Arkansas,
495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)). To be “particularized,” an injury
5
“must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1.
To be “imminent,” an injury must “be ‘certainly impending.’” Pub. Interest Research
Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc.,
123 F.3d 111, 122 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting
Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155–58).
According to Dr. Patel, “[t]he viability of [his] claims as pled in this matter are
contingent upon this Court’s interpretation of the rights afforded under Young . . . .”
Appellant’s Reply Br. 1 (citing, inter alia, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)). Specifically, “Dr. Patel
maintains that the Court’s ruling in Young prohibits criminal investigations and
prosecutions by the parties that have an economic interest in the outcome, holding that
the existence of an economic interest in the criminal investigation and prosecution is per
se unconstitutional and improper.”
Id. In other words, according to Dr. Patel, “the
viability” of his claims as plead in this matter “are contingent” upon a criminal
investigation or prosecution that is per se unconstitutional and improper. Cf.
id.
Even when we accept this premise of Dr. Patel’s argument, his claims fail because
he never alleges that there is—or ever was—a criminal investigation or prosecution
against him. To the contrary, Dr. Patel specifically concedes that he was not, and is not,
the focus of a criminal investigation or prosecution:
Dr. Patel has not been arrested; he has not been charged with a criminal
violation under New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A.
17:33A-1, et seq. (“IFPA”); he has not been advised that he is the target of
a criminal investigation; he is not asking this Court to assume he will
become the target of any criminal investigation; and, he is not asking this
Court to assume he will be arrested for criminal violations of the IFPA.
6
Appellant’s Reply Br. 2–3; see also App. 74, ¶ 38 (“[T]here have not been any criminal
charges filed against Dr. Patel.”).1
In light of these facts, Dr. Patel cannot demonstrate the requisite injury to support
constitutional standing. Cf. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155–60. Instead, we find that, given
his concession, Dr. Patel’s Complaint was rightly dismissed because it is apparent that
the claims and injury described in the Complaint are simply “conjectural or
hypothetical,” and not “actual or imminent” as required by Article III of the Constitution.
See
Blunt, 767 F.3d at 278 (citing
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).
Dr. Patel attempts to evade the Article III requirement of demonstrating an injury-
in-fact by arguing that “[i]f it is per se unconstitutional and improper for criminal
investigations and prosecutions to be conducted by parties with an economic interest in
the outcome, then [he] is not required to show that he has been arrested or charged under
the IFPA or been made the target of the investigation.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 3; see also
App. 74, ¶ 38 (noting that the fact that there were no criminal charges “does not bar his
requested relief here as a criminal prosecution and/or conviction is not a prerequisite to
asserting a claim that a criminal investigation and prosecution by a private actor was
improper.”). Dr. Patel’s argument is flawed for two basic reasons.
First, while Dr. Patel is correct that he does not need to wait for criminal charges
to be filed, he is still required to at least “show that the threatened injury is so imminent
as to be ‘certainly impending.’” Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc., 123 F.3d at
1
Dr. Patel does note that he is a defendant in three separate civil IFPA matters.
7
122 (quoting Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155–58). By conceding that “he is not asking this
Court to assume he will become the target of any criminal investigation” and “is not
asking this Court to assume he will be arrested for criminal violations of the IFPA,” Dr.
Patel does not even attempt to make this showing. Cf. Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 42
(1971) (“[P]ersons having no fears of state prosecution except those that are imaginary or
speculative, are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs[.]”) (citation omitted).
Second, because he concedes that he was not, and is not, the focus of a criminal
investigation, Dr. Patel is improperly seeking a declaration for a hypothetical situation.
We do not have jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion about a hypothetical practice.
See In re Lazy Days’ RV Ctr. Inc., 724 F.3d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Federal Courts
have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. Put another way, they ‘may not decide
questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them or give opinions
advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.’”) (quoting Chafin v.
Chafin,
133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013) (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration
omitted)).
Taking this all into consideration, Dr. Patel’s claim fails because he concedes that
he was not, and is not, the target of a criminal investigation or prosecution. Accordingly,
our inquiry stops here as Dr. Patel lacks standing to bring this action.
IV.
Although we agree with the determination that Dr. Patel lacks standing, we are
nonetheless constrained to vacate the District Court’s dismissal order and remand with
8
instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice. In this regard, we point out that once
the District Court determined that Dr. Patel did not have standing, it necessarily
determined that it did not have jurisdiction and thus could not decide the merits of the
case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998); Goode v. City
of Philadelphia,
539 F.3d 311, 327 (3d Cir. 2008). Because the District Court could not
adjudicate the merits of the case, it was barred from imposing “a sanction which will
terminate the case on the merits.” In re Orthopedic “Bone Screw” Prods. Liab. Litig.,
132 F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we must vacate the dismissal of the
action with prejudice. Id.; see also Korvettes, Inc. v. Brous,
617 F.2d 1021, 1024 (3d Cir.
1980) (“A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is plainly not a determination of the merits of
a claim. Ordinarily, such a dismissal is ‘without prejudice.’”) (citation omitted). On
remand, the District Court shall modify the order of dismissal in accordance with this
opinion and dismiss the case without prejudice.
9
