Preview
MDL NO. 15-0360
In Re: § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
FRAUDULENT HOSPITAL
LIEN LITIGATION.
444th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
(MDL PRETRIAL COURT)
CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. C-2540-19-L
BALDEMAR QUINTERO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
vs. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. C-2541-19-L
MARIA QUINTERO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
VS. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. C-2542-19-L
KARINA QUINTERO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
vs. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. C-2543-19-H
EDGAR PEREZ, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
vs. 389th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants.
SUBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE,
DEFENDANTS, SUGARLAND MISSION BEND EMERGENCY CENTER PLLC
D/B/A SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND
ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC’S, JOINT RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO LATE-FILE
RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE
Sugarland Mission Bend Emergency Center PLLC d/b/a Signature Care Emergency Center
(“Signature Care”) and Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC (“Round Table”) file this Joint
Response to the Motion for Continuance and Motion for Leave to Late-File a Response to the
Motions to Transfer Venue and respectfully ask this Court to deny these Motions.
The Motion for Continuance and Motion for Leave
On June 7, 2019, these lawsuits were filed in Hidalgo County against SignatureCare and
Round Table relating to liens filed in Fort Bend County for medical care received by the individual
plaintiffs in SignatureCare facilities located in Fort Bend County. On June 11, 2019, these cases
were subsequently tagged into this MDL. On July 8, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to transfer
venue in each of these four cases requesting that this Court transfer venue from the 389th and
464th district courts of Hidalgo County, which is not a county of proper venue, to district courts
in Fort Bend County, which is a county of proper venue. TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
12.004. The Court initially entered an order on July 22, 2019 setting these motions for a hearing
on August 5, 2019 and the parties were duly notified. Because notice of the hearing was less than
the 45 days-notice required under Rule 87 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs
filed an Unopposed Motion for Continuance on July 30, 2019. The Court subsequently granted
the Motion for Continuance and re-set the hearings on the Defendants’ Motions to Transfer Venue
for September 25, 2019. These motions to transfer venue have now been pending for more than
two months.
Pursuant to Rule 87 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a response to these motions was
due 30 days before the day of the hearing. Under these rules, the Plaintiffs’ Response was due on
August 26, 2019. According to the Motion for Continuance filed by Plaintiffs and Exhibit C, the
Affidavit of the docketing clerk, counsel for the Plaintiffs docketed the deadline for the response
for September 18, 2019. Mtn, p. 6. Plaintiffs offer this “error and mistake in calendaring” as
“cause” to grant this continuance. But rather then establish “cause,” the affidavit and motion
demonstrate a conscience indifference for the deadlines imposed by the Rules of Procedure.
Specifically, despite the docketing entry reflecting a due date of September 18, 2019, Plaintiffs did
not file a response until the eleventh hour, at 4:30 p.m. on September 24, 2019, and have failed to
offer any explanation, justification or “sufficient cause” for failing to file a response by at least
September 18, 2019. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 251.
This “conscious indifference” and lack of due diligence is further demonstrated by the fact
that at least as early as September 17, 2019, counsel was aware that it had missed the deadline and
was aware of the necessity for filing a motion for continuance yet failed to seek relief from this
Court until September 24, 2019, less than 24 hours before the scheduled hearing. See Mtn., p. 6.
This “error and mistake in calendaring” is not sufficient cause to grant the motion for continuance.
In addition, Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if the court grants this untimely filed
Motion for Continuance. Counsel for the Defendants resides in Harris County. In order to attend
any hearing in this MDL, counsel must travel the day before. The Motion for Continuance was not
filed until after counsel for the Defendants had gone to the expense of traveling to Cameron
County to attend the hearing. More importantly, these cases do not belong in Hidalgo County or
in this MDL but until they are transferred, the undersigned will necessarily have to continue to
monitor the numerous filings made by other parties at continued expense to the Defendants.
Because Defendants have been and will be prejudiced by any further delay, Defendants request
that this Court deny the Motion for Continuance. Likewise, Defendants request that this court
deny the Plaintiffs’ motion to late-file their response and object to the consideration of the
Response. Plaintiffs’ have failed to establish good cause.
Alternatively, should this Court grant leave, Defendants reserve the right to file a reply and
move for a continuance to do so.
The Motion for Stay
On June 11, 2019, Round Table Physicians Group LLC and the related SignatureCare
facilities filed a Motion for Transfer to a Multidistrict Pretrial Court seeking the creation of an
MDL for certain designated cases filed against those entities in Harris and Fort Bend County. On
June 19, 2019, the MDL Panel issued an Order staying “[a]ll trial court proceedings in the cases
listed in the Appendix to the Motion to Transfer.” Ex. A. Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ assertion
otherwise, the stay does not apply to these cases as they were not listed in the Appendix. See
Ex. B, Appendix (excerpted). Plaintiffs claim they need clarification as to the scope of the stay
and claim that the stay should apply to these cases and that the stay precludes this court from
moving forward on the venue motions. But correspondence with counsel for the Plaintiffs
indermines these representations. On July 30, 2019, nearly two months ago, the parties agreed to
enter into a Rule 11 staying all discovery “while the motions to transfer venue, motions to remand
and motions to create Harris County/Ft Bend County MDL are pending.” Ex. C. At the time of
this discussion, and as evidenced by the attached exchange between counsel, there was never any
agreement or suggestion that this Court did not have the ability to rule on the motions to transfer
venue or that clarification of the MDL stay was a necessary prerequisite to this Court entertaining
the motions to transfer venue. To suggest otherwise is incredible.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs have misrepresented the exchange between counsel. As indicated
in those emails, the parties agreed to a stay of all discovery pending further action by the MDL
court. The parties did not enter into an agreement that the MDL stay applied to discovery; instead,
the difference of opinion as to the scope of the MDL stay was noted and the parties agreed that the
stay should include discovery. Hence the Rule 11. Nothing else was agreed upon.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court deny the Motion for
Continuance, deny the Motion for Leave to Late-File a Response and grant Defendants Motions
to Transfer Venue and provide such other relief as they may be justly entitled.
DATED: September 24, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
MYERS ¢ DOYLE
By: /s/ Melanie Rubinsky
Melanie Rubinsky
SBN: 50511615
mrubinsky@myersdoyle.com
7676 Woodway, Suite 350
Houston, Texas 77063
(713) 278-9215
(713) 278-9163 Facsimile
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
By: /s/ Christopher D. DeMeo
Christopher D. DeMeo
Texas Bar No. 00796456
cdemeo@seyfarth.com
Kay Hazelwood
Texas Bar No. 09310450
khazelwood@seyfarth.com
Andrew P. del Junco
Texas Bar No. 24097585
adeljunco@seyfarth.com
700 Milam, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-0292
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
ATTORNEYS FOR SUGARLAND MISSION
BEND EMERGENCY CENTER, PLLC AND
ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GRouPp, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on
September 24, 2019, a true and correct copy of this submission was served on all opposing counsel
by approved electronic filing service including:
Moore Law Firm
J. Michael Moore
4900 North 10th Street, Suite F3
McAllen, Texas 78504
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
/s/Melanie Rubinsky
Melanie Rubinsky
Preview
MDL NO. 15-0360 In Re: § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FRAUDULENT HOSPITAL LIEN LITIGATION. 444th JUDICIAL DISTRICT (MDL PRETRIAL COURT) CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. C-2540-19-L BALDEMAR QUINTERO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. CAUSE NO. C-2541-19-L MARIA QUINTERO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, VS. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. CAUSE NO. C-2542-19-L KARINA QUINTERO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. CAUSE NO. C-2543-19-H EDGAR PEREZ, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. 389th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. SUBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE, DEFENDANTS, SUGARLAND MISSION BEND EMERGENCY CENTER PLLC D/B/A SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC’S, JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO LATE-FILE RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE Sugarland Mission Bend Emergency Center PLLC d/b/a Signature Care Emergency Center (“Signature Care”) and Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC (“Round Table”) file this Joint Response to the Motion for Continuance and Motion for Leave to Late-File a Response to the Motions to Transfer Venue and respectfully ask this Court to deny these Motions. The Motion for Continuance and Motion for Leave On June 7, 2019, these lawsuits were filed in Hidalgo County against SignatureCare and Round Table relating to liens filed in Fort Bend County for medical care received by the individual plaintiffs in SignatureCare facilities located in Fort Bend County. On June 11, 2019, these cases were subsequently tagged into this MDL. On July 8, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to transfer venue in each of these four cases requesting that this Court transfer venue from the 389th and 464th district courts of Hidalgo County, which is not a county of proper venue, to district courts in Fort Bend County, which is a county of proper venue. TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 12.004. The Court initially entered an order on July 22, 2019 setting these motions for a hearing on August 5, 2019 and the parties were duly notified. Because notice of the hearing was less than the 45 days-notice required under Rule 87 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Continuance on July 30, 2019. The Court subsequently granted the Motion for Continuance and re-set the hearings on the Defendants’ Motions to Transfer Venue for September 25, 2019. These motions to transfer venue have now been pending for more than two months. Pursuant to Rule 87 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a response to these motions was due 30 days before the day of the hearing. Under these rules, the Plaintiffs’ Response was due on August 26, 2019. According to the Motion for Continuance filed by Plaintiffs and Exhibit C, the Affidavit of the docketing clerk, counsel for the Plaintiffs docketed the deadline for the response for September 18, 2019. Mtn, p. 6. Plaintiffs offer this “error and mistake in calendaring” as “cause” to grant this continuance. But rather then establish “cause,” the affidavit and motion demonstrate a conscience indifference for the deadlines imposed by the Rules of Procedure. Specifically, despite the docketing entry reflecting a due date of September 18, 2019, Plaintiffs did not file a response until the eleventh hour, at 4:30 p.m. on September 24, 2019, and have failed to offer any explanation, justification or “sufficient cause” for failing to file a response by at least September 18, 2019. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 251. This “conscious indifference” and lack of due diligence is further demonstrated by the fact that at least as early as September 17, 2019, counsel was aware that it had missed the deadline and was aware of the necessity for filing a motion for continuance yet failed to seek relief from this Court until September 24, 2019, less than 24 hours before the scheduled hearing. See Mtn., p. 6. This “error and mistake in calendaring” is not sufficient cause to grant the motion for continuance. In addition, Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if the court grants this untimely filed Motion for Continuance. Counsel for the Defendants resides in Harris County. In order to attend any hearing in this MDL, counsel must travel the day before. The Motion for Continuance was not filed until after counsel for the Defendants had gone to the expense of traveling to Cameron County to attend the hearing. More importantly, these cases do not belong in Hidalgo County or in this MDL but until they are transferred, the undersigned will necessarily have to continue to monitor the numerous filings made by other parties at continued expense to the Defendants. Because Defendants have been and will be prejudiced by any further delay, Defendants request that this Court deny the Motion for Continuance. Likewise, Defendants request that this court deny the Plaintiffs’ motion to late-file their response and object to the consideration of the Response. Plaintiffs’ have failed to establish good cause. Alternatively, should this Court grant leave, Defendants reserve the right to file a reply and move for a continuance to do so. The Motion for Stay On June 11, 2019, Round Table Physicians Group LLC and the related SignatureCare facilities filed a Motion for Transfer to a Multidistrict Pretrial Court seeking the creation of an MDL for certain designated cases filed against those entities in Harris and Fort Bend County. On June 19, 2019, the MDL Panel issued an Order staying “[a]ll trial court proceedings in the cases listed in the Appendix to the Motion to Transfer.” Ex. A. Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ assertion otherwise, the stay does not apply to these cases as they were not listed in the Appendix. See Ex. B, Appendix (excerpted). Plaintiffs claim they need clarification as to the scope of the stay and claim that the stay should apply to these cases and that the stay precludes this court from moving forward on the venue motions. But correspondence with counsel for the Plaintiffs indermines these representations. On July 30, 2019, nearly two months ago, the parties agreed to enter into a Rule 11 staying all discovery “while the motions to transfer venue, motions to remand and motions to create Harris County/Ft Bend County MDL are pending.” Ex. C. At the time of this discussion, and as evidenced by the attached exchange between counsel, there was never any agreement or suggestion that this Court did not have the ability to rule on the motions to transfer venue or that clarification of the MDL stay was a necessary prerequisite to this Court entertaining the motions to transfer venue. To suggest otherwise is incredible. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have misrepresented the exchange between counsel. As indicated in those emails, the parties agreed to a stay of all discovery pending further action by the MDL court. The parties did not enter into an agreement that the MDL stay applied to discovery; instead, the difference of opinion as to the scope of the MDL stay was noted and the parties agreed that the stay should include discovery. Hence the Rule 11. Nothing else was agreed upon. Conclusion Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court deny the Motion for Continuance, deny the Motion for Leave to Late-File a Response and grant Defendants Motions to Transfer Venue and provide such other relief as they may be justly entitled. DATED: September 24, 2019 Respectfully submitted, MYERS ¢ DOYLE By: /s/ Melanie Rubinsky Melanie Rubinsky SBN: 50511615 mrubinsky@myersdoyle.com 7676 Woodway, Suite 350 Houston, Texas 77063 (713) 278-9215 (713) 278-9163 Facsimile SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/ Christopher D. DeMeo Christopher D. DeMeo Texas Bar No. 00796456 cdemeo@seyfarth.com Kay Hazelwood Texas Bar No. 09310450 khazelwood@seyfarth.com Andrew P. del Junco Texas Bar No. 24097585 adeljunco@seyfarth.com 700 Milam, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 225-0292 Facsimile: (713) 225-2340 ATTORNEYS FOR SUGARLAND MISSION BEND EMERGENCY CENTER, PLLC AND ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GRouPp, PLLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on September 24, 2019, a true and correct copy of this submission was served on all opposing counsel by approved electronic filing service including: Moore Law Firm J. Michael Moore 4900 North 10th Street, Suite F3 McAllen, Texas 78504 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF /s/Melanie Rubinsky Melanie Rubinsky