green
Positive treatment
Hot · 136 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 25×
115.0 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 7 distinct cases, 2011–2021 · 3 courts ·
…because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2023–2025 ·
…he inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
at p. 1357
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Karns v. Disability Reinsurance Management Services Inc.
Feb.7, 2005) (same); but cf. Doc. 1 at 4 (applying the two-step test Davila test presented in Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir.2009) (citing Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 , 124 S.Ct. 2488 , 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004))). 3 Applying the four-part Butero analysis to the facts of this case, the court finds that Defendants, have satisfactorily established each element.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jones v. Richmond County Sheriff Department
he inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thorn v. Buffalo Rock Company
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the second inquiry is whether rutt's and egan's claims are predicated on a legal duty that is independent of erisa. our analysis above answers this question.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Emsurgcare v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company.
o long as the provider's state law claim does not fall within 502(a), the existence of the assignment is irrelevant to complete preemption if the provider asserts no claim under the assignment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arnold v. Kinsey
he inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
South Coast Specialty Surgery Center, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California
n assignment furthers erisa's purposes only if the provider can enforce the right to payment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Johnson v. Podolsky
he inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arbitrade Ltd.
but the inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Millennium Funding, Inc. v. 1701 Management, LLC.
but the inquiry is whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Davis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
on a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Turner v. The Bristol at Tampa Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
complete preemption is a narrow exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and exists where the preemptive force of a federal statute is so extraordinary that it converts an ordinary state law claim into a statutory federal claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dorsett v. Highlands Lake Center, LLC
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
complete preemption is a narrow exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and exists where the preemptive force of a federal statute is so extraordinary that it converts an ordinary state law claim into a statutory federal claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wright v. Regions Bank
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
ll one needs for standing under erisa is a colorable claim for benefits . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thoms v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
healthcare provider claims are usually not subject to complete preemption because 'ealthcare providers ... generally are not considered 'beneficiaries' or 'participants' under erisa.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
LIFEBRITE HOSPITAL GROUP OF STOKES, LLC v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
rutt and egan must have had standing to assert erisa claims, and because they are providers, they could only have derivative standing through assignments.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Smith v. Pickens
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the test ordinarily applied for determining whether a claim arises under federal law is whether a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
anthem contends that these claim forms suffice to show an assignment of benefits by rutt's and egan's patients. we agree.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Britt v. IEC Corporation
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rahmaan v. United States
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ryder v. United States
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bettis v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation
removal jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Premier Inpatient Partners LLC v. Aetna Health & Life Ins. Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
as a general rule, a case arises under federal law only if it is federal law that creates the cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Edwaldo Louis Oliveiri v. United States
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
SCL Basilisk AG v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Susan Liese v. Indian River County Hospital District
(2×)
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Liana Lee Lopez
because they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief, we treat this argument as waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newton v. Grajny (Dorfman)
Appx. 425 , 428 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished per curiam) (in context of motion to set aside judgment, noting prejudice to opposing party because of “duplication of time, effort, and expense”); Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, 591 F.3d 1337, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009) (in context of motion to set aside judgment, “the inquiry is 9 whether prejudice results from the delay, not from having to continue to litigate the case”); see generally, e.g., Gilliam, 343 A.3d at 906 (in determining whether petitioners showed “excusable neglect” under Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kilpatrick Cornelius McKinney v. United States of America
A Rule 60(b) motion is “directed to the sound discretion of the district court[.]” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Progress Residential Borrower 19, LLC v. Everlena Rasheeda Brummage; Dyliyah Shupier White; and all other occupants
Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deborah Porter Cahill v. City of Jacksonville, et al.
Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368 , 1373 (11th Cir. 1998)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Benjamin J. Cousins, M.D., P.A. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., et al.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Complete preemption under ERISA provides an “exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and exists where the preemptive force of a federal statute is so extraordinary that it converts an ordinary state law claim into a statutory federal claim.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Bradley Martin
A. Rule 60(b)(1): Excusable Neglect Under Rule 60(b)(1), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment upon a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” “Excusable neglect is generally an equitable inquiry based upon the particular circumstances of the case.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer Inv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fast Response Marine Towing & Salvage, LLC v. M/V Bad Habits, in rem, and Julio Alberto Rodriguez Concepcion, in personam
Because “Rule 60(b) motions are directed to the sound discretion of the district court,” the Eleventh Circuit “will set aside the denial of relief from such motion only for abuse of that discretion.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848 , 849 n. 2 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frances Calhoun v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store No. 712 et al.
“To determine whether a movant’s neglect is excusable, a court is required to engage in an equitable inquiry into ‘the particular circumstances of the case.’” Oquendo v. United States, 541 F. App’x 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Pioneer Inv.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation v. Cigna Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc.
Cal. 2025) (quoting Conn. State Dental Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BAYLOR A. NOLEN v. AMERITRUCKS CENTER LLC, et al.
LEGAL STANDARDS “On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baylor A. Nolen v. Ameritrucks Center LLC, et al.
LEGAL STANDARDS “On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fang v. Wells Fargo & Company
Co., 174 24 F.3d 1207, 1212 (11th Cir.1999)); see also Yaralian v. Fastovsky, 2016 WL 552675 , at *3 (C.D. 25 Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) (explaining that this Davila prong requires that: (1) the claims fail within 26 ERISA’s scope and (2) “the plaintiff must have standing to sue under ERISA”) (quoting Conn. 27 State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009)). 1 the statute, as well as by whom and against whom they may be brought.” Toumajian, 135 F.3d at 2 656.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. Bailey
Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aaron J. West, M.D., P.A. v. Drago
Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert M. Robinson v. Statewide Wrecker Service, Inc.
Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gordon v. Scott
Connecticut State Dental Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009); McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Valley Children's Hospital v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc.
“First, 21 healthcare provider claims are usually not subject to complete preemption because ‘[h]ealthcare 22 providers . . . generally are not considered ‘beneficiaries’ or ‘participants’ under ERISA.” 23 Connecticut State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Care Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1346 (11th 24 Cir. 2009) (quoting Hobbs v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ala., 276 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 25 2001)). 26 “Second, it is well-established in . . . most [] circuits that a healthcare provider may 27 acquire derivative standing to sue under ERISA by obtaining a written assignment fr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
ERISA’s Complete Preemption Standard ERISA’s complete preemption test can turn an “ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Powell v. The School Board of Volusia County, Florida
Four factors are relevant to the excusable neglect inquiry: “the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer Inv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Volusia v. Ward
“In such a case, the proper approach is to ‘assert preemption as a defense’ in state court, not to ‘remove the case to federal court.’” Id. at *7 (alterations adopted) (quoting Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir. 2009)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fraser v. Sea Island Company, LLC
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 73 (1996); Conn. State Dental Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez-Hassan v. Atlanta Harm Reduction Coalition, Inc.
Whether to grant a motion under Rule 60(b) is within the “sound discretion of the district court.” Chege v. Ga. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 787 F. App’x 595 , 597 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lynch v. Filice
Connecticut State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gogan v. Napier
Connecticut State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dave ROBERSON, III, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Dave ROBERSON, III, Defendant-Appellant
09-10519.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 30, 2009.
Edward J. Coleman, III (Courtr-Appointed), Surrett & Coleman, P.A., Augusta, GA, for Roberson., James C. Stuchell, Savannah, GA, for U.S.
Tjoflat, Edmondson, Black.
Published
PER CURIAM:
Dave Roberson, III, appeals his 300-month sentence for robbery of a commercial business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Roberson asserts his prior Georgia conviction for a walkaway escape did not constitute a predicate “crime of violence” qualifying him for sentencing as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. §§ 4Bl.l(a), 4B1.2(a).
The Government concedes that, in light of the recent decision in Chambers v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009), “Roberson’s escape conviction, based upon a walkaway escape, did not constitute a crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. We agree with the Government’s concession. Thus, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED.