Magno v. Unum Group et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 9 Motion to Remand; granting 13 Motion to Remand to San Francisco Superior Court. (knmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ROSE MAGNO,

Case No. 14-cv-05041-VC

Plaintiff,
6
v.

ORDER OF REMAND

7
8

UNUM GROUP, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 13

Defendants.
9
10

The motion to remand the case to San Francisco Superior Court is granted. Although it

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

appears the plaintiff's decision to include the mandamus claim against the Insurance

12

Commissioner was motivated by a desire to defeat diversity jurisdiction, the test for whether the

13

Commissioner is a "sham defendant" whose presence may not defeat diversity jurisdiction is an

14

objective one, involving an inquiry into whether the plaintiff has clearly and obviously failed to

15

state a claim against the alleged sham defendant. And in this case, although UNUM has submitted

16

evidence which seems to indicate that the Commissioner reviewed and approved the provisions of

17

the policy at issue in the mandamus claim (which would likely defeat the mandamus claim), the

18

answer filed by the Commissioner creates confusion on that point. Specifically, in Paragraph 44

19

of the answer the Commissioner appears to allege that he reviewed the provisions, but he goes on

20

to deny, in Paragraphs 45 and 46, that he approved the policy. In light of the confusion created by

21

the Commissioner's answer, the Court cannot be assured that the plaintiff has failed to state a

22

mandamus claim against the Commissioner. Accordingly, the case must be remanded.

23

The Clerk is directed to remand the case to San Francisco Superior Court.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: January 14, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge