Acadiana Management Group, LLC v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Acadiana Management Group, LLC v. United States

Opinion

Case: 21-1941 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ACADIANA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, ALBUQUERQUE-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, CENTRAL INDIANA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, LTAC HOSPITAL OF EDMOND, LLC, HOUMA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, LTAC OF LOUISIANA, LLC, LAS VEGAS-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, WARREN BOEGEL, BOEGEL FARMS, LLC, THREE BO’S, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2021-1941 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:19-cv-00496-PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell- Smith. ______________________

Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Case: 21-1941 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2022

2 ACADIANA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC v. US

The appellants filed this action at the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging an illegal exaction pred- icated on a fee increase resulting from implementation of a 2017 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1930. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this appeal followed. The parties now inform this court that the Supreme Court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), recently addressed the constitutionality of the fee increase from the 2017 amendment and the parties agree that “this Court should vacate the two orders that are the subject of the instant appeal [the order granting the government’s motion to dismiss and the order denying re- consideration] and remand . . . for proceedings not incon- sistent with Siegel.” ECF No. 45 at 2. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States Court of Federal Claims’ No- vember 30, 2020, order and May 6, 2021, order are vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

September 16, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 16, 2022

Reference

Status
Unpublished