Quantas Healthcare Management LLC v. Sun City Emergency Room LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

QUANTAS HEALTHCARE § MANAGEMENT, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil No. 3:23-CV-0891-K v. § § SUN CITY EMERGENCY ROOM, LLC § and SUN CITY WEST EMERGENCY § ROOM, LLC, § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Sun City Emergency Room, LLC and Sun City West Emergency Room, LLC’s (together, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (the “Motion”) (Doc. No. 43). Plaintiff Quantas Healthcare Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response in Opposition (the “Response”) (Doc. No. 48) to the Motion and Defendants filed a Reply (the “Reply”) (Doc. No. 56) to the Response. Defendants challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under Article III to hear this case, arguing that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its federal claims, to recover damages, and to pursue injunctive relief. “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Smith v. Reg’l Transit Auth., 756 F.3d 340, 347 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2005)). A party may challenge the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). FED. R. Civ. P. [2(b)(1). Here, Defendants attack only Plaintiff's constitutional standing which “is a jurisdictional question.” Brown □□ Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 663 F.3d 759, 769 (Sth Cir. 2011). The Court may dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any one of the following: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (Sth Cir. 1981); accord Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, L61 (Sth Cir. 2001). On this Motion, the Court did not need to decide disputed factual issues in order to determine its jurisdiction. Having carefully considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the applicable Jaw, and the relevant portions of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff demonstrated it has constitutional standing. See Ramming, 28] F.3d at 161 (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion). The Court is satisfied of its power under Article to hear this case and, thus, DENIES Defendants’ Motion. See id. (court should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief.”). SO ORDERED. Signed June 10", 2024.

EDKINKEADE ———— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE