Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Chris Lazarini Comments on Standing to Bring Claims and Federal Jurisdictional Issues


December 9, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided comment on a case in which the Plaintiff sued his father's brokerage firm for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the RICO Act. The court dismissed the claim for several reasons, including Plaintiff's lack of standing – since Plaintiff was a future beneficiary of the trust, Plaintiff did not suffer any injury as yet and therefore was ineligible to file suit – and Plaintiff's failure to meet either the federal question or diversity jurisdiction thresholds. Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Powell vs. First Allied Securities, Inc., No. 14-13589 (E.D. Mich., 9/28/15) 

*To have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an actual or imminent injury in fact.
**Merely citing to a federal statute, without factual support, cannot create federal question jurisdiction.
***The amount claimed by a plaintiff usually determines the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, but where it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount, a diversity claim should be dismissed. 

Seeking to gain control over a portion of his father's trust, pro se Plaintiff sued First Allied, alleging violations of the '34 Act and RICO statute. The Court dismisses the complaint on multiple grounds. First, it finds, as a "future beneficiary" of the trust, Plaintiff has no present possessory interest in the trust assets, has not suffered an injury in fact, and, therefore, lacks standing to bring the claims.

Second, even if standing exists, the Court finds jurisdiction lacking. Federal question jurisdiction does not exist, because Plaintiff failed to allege facts suggesting that First Allied committed securities fraud or violated the RICO statute. The Court also concludes that diversity jurisdiction does not exist, finding the amount in controversy to be less than the $75,000 threshold, after excluding Plaintiff's punitive damage claim (as it deems this case to be a simple contract claim in which punitive damages are not available). Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's mother is an indispensable party, whose addition to the case would destroy diversity jurisdiction, even if the amount in controversy threshold were established.

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.