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)
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?