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.)

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