The Fifth Circuit adopted an attenuated version of “related to” jurisdiction in the course of holding that a state law governing medical malpractice claims was procedural and therefore not applicable in federal court.
A man filed suit in federal court, claiming he was disabled by incompetently performed back surgery. Because the surgeon was in bankruptcy, the plaintiff sued only the hospital and a nurse.
The plaintiff appealed after the district court dismissed the suit. Before reaching the merits of the appeal, the Fifth Circuit first examined whether there was “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction in the first place.
Writing the opinion for the appeals court on May 19, Circuit Judge James L. Dennis said there would be related-to jurisdiction if the suit could have a “conceivable effect” on the surgeon’s bankruptcy.
If the plaintiff were to win the suit, the defendants would have contribution or indemnity claims against the surgeon. Consequently, Judge Dennis said there was a “conceivable effect” to sustain bankruptcy jurisdiction.
On the merits, the appeal dealt with a Texas law requiring the plaintiff to file an expert’s report within 120 days of commencing an action. The state statute mandates dismissal if the report is not filed. The district judge had dismissed the suit because the plaintiff did not file an expert’s report.
Judge Dennis said that an “overwhelming majority” of district courts have held that the state law was procedural, not substantive, and thus not applicable in lawsuits in federal court based on state law.
To arrive at the answer, Judge Dennis pointed to Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires disclosure of experts’ reports “at the times and in the sequence” that the court directs. In contrast, the reports must be filed within 120 days under state law.
Next, Federal Rule 37(c) does not mandate dismissal if an expert’s reports are not filed on time. Because the Federal Rules give the district court “broad discretion,” the state law “directly collides” with the Federal Rules since there would be a different result, Judge Dennis said.
If applied, the state law would “significantly interfere with federal control of discovery, an area governed exclusively by federal law,” Judge Dennis said. Since state law and the Federal Rules both answer the same questions in an area that is within rulemaking authority granted by Congress, he held that a federal court adjudicating a state law claim cannot apply state law mandating the date for disclosure of experts’ reports.