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