Dameron Hospital Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/21/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 7 remand motion is DENIED. (Duong, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a California Non-Profit Association, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 13 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 14 Defendants. ________________________________ 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-03396-GEB-JFM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND 15 16 Plaintiff seeks to remand this case to the state court from 17 which Defendant removed it, arguing that removal was improper because 18 the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“§ 19 1332”). § 1332 prescribes: “The district courts shall have original 20 jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 21 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 22 and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 23 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden 24 of showing the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 25 “[T]he defendant always has the burden of establishing that 26 removal is proper. Normally, this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff 27 claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement.” Gaus v. 28 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 However, “[w]here it is 1 not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 2 controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the 3 evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional 4 threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 5 (9th Cir. 2003). When determining whether a defendant satisfies this 6 burden, the Court may consider “facts presented in the removal petition 7 as well as any summary-judgement-type evidence relevant to the amount in 8 controversy at the time of removal.” Id. (internal quotation marks 9 omitted). 10 It is undisputed that Plaintiff seeks $61,049.84 in damages 11 based on alleged amounts of unpaid patient accounts which have been 12 assigned 13 attorneys’ fees Plaintiff seeks in its claim alleged under California 14 Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (“section 17200”) 15 is considered when determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds 16 $75,000.00. Plaintiff’s section 17200 claim includes the allegation that 17 it “is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under [California] Code 18 of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 [(“section 1021.5”)].” (Compl. ¶ 39.) 19 Section 1021.5 prescribes: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 to Plaintiff. However, the parties dispute whether Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. CAL. CIV. PROC . CODE § 1021.5. 28 2 the 1 “[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of 2 attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such 3 fees may be included in the amount in controversy.” Galt G/S v. JSS 4 Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, the information 5 in the removal petition shows that the amount of attorneys’ fees 6 Plaintiff seeks, combined with Plaintiff’s alleged damages, satisfy the 7 minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy. 8 remand motion is denied. 9 Dated: Therefore, Plaintiff’s April 21, 2011 10 11 12 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?