Roark v. Humana, Inc.

Full title: GWEN ROARK and ROBERT ROARK, Plaintiffs, v. HUMANA, INC., et al.…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Sep 10, 2001

Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-2368-D (N.D. Tex. Sep. 10, 2001)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-2368-D

September 10, 2001

ORDER

SIDNEY FITZWATER, District Judge

Plaintiffs move the court to enter a final judgment in this case. The court grants the motion and enters a final judgment today.

Because the court must address its own jurisdiction to grant the motion, it raises the issue sua sponte. On February 5, 2001 the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand, concluding inter alia that their claims were completely preempted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001-1461. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to allege a single claim under the Texas Health Care Liability Act ("THCLA"), Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 88.001-88.003 (Vernon Supp. 2001). Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and defendants moved to dismiss the THCLA claim. In a memorandum opinion and order filed May 25, 2001, the court held that the THCLA claim was completely preempted under ERISA. It denied plaintiffs' motion to remand and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court gave plaintiffs 30 days from the date of the memorandum opinion and order to file an amended complaint that stated a claim against Humana under ERISA. The order provided that if plaintiffs opted not to replead, the court would dismiss this action with prejudice. In view of the options made available to plaintiffs, however, the court did not file a final judgment of dismissal. Rather than replead or explicitly opt not to replead, thereby triggering entry of a final judgment, plaintiffs filed a June 21, 2001 notice of appeal from the court's interlocutory May 25, 2001 memorandum opinion and order. This appeal has been docketed with the Fifth Circuit, see Roark v. Humana, Inc., No. 01-10831 (5th Cir. June 28, 2001), and is still pending.

"Generally, when an appeal is taken, the district court is divested of jurisdiction except to take action in aid of the appeal until the case is remanded to it by the appellate court, or to correct clerical errors under Rule 60(a)." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1407 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, filing a final judgment will aid the appeal by making appealable an unappealable interlocutory memorandum opinion and order.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' August 20, 2001 motion to enter a final judgment is granted. The court has filed a final judgment today.

SO ORDERED.