United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, INC.
CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court are the Second Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 48) and the
First Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) (Doc. 11) filed by Defendant City of Baton
Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge C'EBR"), through
the City of Baton Rouge Division of Human Development and
Services. Plaintiff, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
('AHF'), filed an Opposition to the First Motion to
Dismiss. (Doc. 29). Defendant then filed a Reply Memorandum
to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 34). In
response, Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply Memorandum in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 35). Subsequently,
Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 47), which
alleged the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
In response, Defendant filed its second Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 48). The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Oral argument is not necessary. For the following
reasons, the Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 11; Doc.
48) are DENIED.
seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages
arising from Defendant's decision not to renew its
federally-funded Ryan White Program Contract ("the
Contract") with Plaintiff. (Doc. 10 at ¶¶ 1,
4). On October 2, 2015, Defendant issued a request for
proposal (the "RFP"), which sought proposals from
qualified public or non-profit entities to become a
sub-recipient of Defendant's Ryan White Program funds to
assist in providing core services to persons living with
HIV/AIDS. (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 31). Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into the Contract with an effective
date of March 1, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 41). The
Contract provided for an initial term of March 1, 2016 to
February 28, 2017, and the RFP provided that "[u]p to
two additional 12-month renewal awards may be made based upon
the availability of funds and acceptable contract
performance." (Id. at ¶ 43) (quoting Doc.
10-1 at p. 9).
the Contract, Plaintiff, a sub-recipient of Defendant's
federal funds, provided medical services to uninsured and
under insured people with HIV/AIDS in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(Doc. 10 at ¶ 1). In January 2017, Defendant scheduled a
routine Ryan White Program monitoring review of Plaintiffs
operations related to its 2016-17 Contract. (Id. at
¶ 49). Pursuant to Section XXL "Program
Income" of the Contract, Defendant requested production
of several documents to review, including documents regarding
Plaintiffs use of the 340B Program. (Id. at ¶
50). Plaintiff refused to comply, explaining that it did not
believe Defendant had the authority to collect and review
Plaintiffs 340B documentation. (Id. at ¶ 51).
April 18, 2017, Defendant wrote to Plaintiff to inform it of
the non-renewal of the Contract due to its failure to submit
documentation requested by Defendant concerning the 340B
program, (Doc. 10 at ¶ 70). Defendant informed Plaintiff
that it would be transitioning Plaintiffs patients to other
agencies; however, some of Plaintiffs patients indicated that
they wished to continue to receive services from Plaintiff.
(Id., at ¶¶ 70-71). Plaintiff continued to
provide these services, even though it had to pay for these
services with its own funds, and has billed Defendant for
reimbursement. (Id. at ¶¶ 72-73).
seeks a declaration that Defendant lacks the authority under
42 U.S.C. § 256b to decertify Plaintiff as a covered
entity under the 340B program and to demand documentation
from Plaintiff regarding the 340B program. (Doc. 10 at pp.
14, 16). Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that
Defendant's failure to renew the Contract was arbitrary,
capricious, and in violation of 45 C.R.F. § 75.328(a).
(Id. at p. 18). Lastly, Plaintiff raises a number of
state law claims based on breach of contract and the
Louisiana Public Bid Law, and requests injunctive relief.
(Id. at pp. 19-20, 22).
Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is analyzed under the
same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Benton v. United States, 960 F.2d 19, 21 (5th Cir.
1992) (per curiam). "A claim may not be dismissed unless
it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of
facts that would entitle him to legal relief." In re
Supreme Beef Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 248, 251 (5th
Cir. 2006) (en banc). The Court "take[s] the well-pled
factual allegations of the complaint as true and view[s] them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Lane
v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). When
analyzing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court "may find a
plausible set of facts by considering any of the following:
'(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented
by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the
court's resolution of disputed facts.'"
Id. (quoting Barrera-Montenegro v. United
States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996)).
so, the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden
of proof on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d
158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). When a district court finds that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, its determination is not
on the merits of the case, and does not bar the plaintiff
from pursuing the claim in a proper jurisdiction. Hitt v.
City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per
Diversity Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff properly invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when he
presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that
exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, that is, $75,
000, exclusive of interest and costs. Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp.,546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citing § 1332