Prime Healthcare Services - Shasta, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/12/2016 GRANTING 8 Motion to Remand; REMANDING this case to Superior Court of California, County of Shasta. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 14 PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES SHASTA, LLC, doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, CIV NO.: 2:16-01363 WBS KJN ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ----oo0oo---Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Services - Shasta, LLC 22 initiated this action in Shasta County Superior Court against 23 defendant Allstate Insurance Company, bringing breach of contract 24 and California Business Code § 17200 claims arising out of 25 medical services provided by plaintiff. 26 action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, (Docket No. 2), 27 and plaintiff now moves to remand, (Docket No. 8). 28 Defendant removed this “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which 1 1 the district courts of the United States have original 2 jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, 3 to the district court of the United States for the district . . . 4 where such action is pending.” 5 “it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 6 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 7 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, if 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases 8 where complete diversity exists between the parties and the 9 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 10 costs. 11 defendant “has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 12 evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” 13 v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As the party seeking removal, Cohn Here, plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $56,000 in damages. 15 (Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”) (Docket No. 2-1).) 16 Declaration of John Nuelle in support of motion to remand 17 confirms the claims at issue are no more than $56,000 and are 18 below the amount-in-controversy requirement. 19 (Docket No. 8-3).) 20 permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant from denying 21 plaintiff’s bills. 22 The (Nuelle Decl. Ex. A Plaintiff also seeks interest, costs, and (See Compl. ¶ 24.) In its notice of removal, defendant originally argued 23 that the amount plaintiff allege they were underpaid was 24 approximately $159,000 based on plaintiff’s theories of recovery 25 and plaintiff’s equitable relief would require defendant to pay 26 higher rates for future services provided to its members. 27 (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 18-19 (Docket No. 2).) 28 plaintiff’s motion to remand and the claims at issue, defendant 2 After reviewing 1 does not oppose the motion to remand on the basis that plaintiff 2 seeks no more than $56,000 in damages and the amount-in- 3 controversy requirement is not met. 4 (Docket No. 10).) 5 meets the amount-in-controversy requirement. 6 court must grant plaintiff’s motion to remand. 7 (Def.’s Notice of Non-Opp’n Thus, defendant has not shown that this case Accordingly, the IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 8 remand be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and this action is 9 hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 10 in and for the County of Shasta. 11 Dated: October 12, 2016 12 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?