Acsel Health, LLC v. Campbell Alliance Group, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER RE: JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; VACATING HEARING DATES by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ; denying as moot 26 Administrative Motion to Reset the Hearing Date.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

ACSEL HEALTH, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Case No.: 16-cv-01042 YGR
ORDER RE: JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY;
VACATING HEARING DATES

v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 23, 26
CAMPBELL ALLIANCE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff Acsel Health, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to

13

remand the case, arguing in part that defendant Campbell Alliance Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) has not

14

satisfied its burden to establish diversity of citizenship of the parties under 28 U.S.C. section

15

1332(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 19.)

16

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a citizen of New York by virtue of the citizenship of its

17

members. It is similarly undisputed that Defendant is a citizen of North Carolina as a business

18

incorporated under the laws of that State. Defendant, as a corporation, is also a citizen of the State in

19

which its principal place of business (“PPB”) is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff contends

20

that Defendant’s PPB is its New York City headquarters. By contrast, Defendant contends its PPB is

21

its Raleigh, North Carolina office – the place of its headquarters until 2012 and where its current

22

chief financial officer is located.

23

The evidence submitted by the parties does not persuade that either New York City or Raleigh

24

is the PPB for Defendant under the “nerve center” test announced by the Supreme Court in Hertz

25

Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). The evidence suggests that San Francisco is potentially the

26

PPB given that Defendant’s acting president and chief operating officer is located in the San

27

Francisco office. If so, removal of this diversity action brought in California was improper by a

28

California citizen. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

1

In light of the state of the record the Court ORDERS limited jurisdictional discovery to

2

ascertain Defendant’s PPB. Plaintiff may seek discovery related directly to this issue. Thereafter, the

3

parties shall submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue of Defendant’s PPB based on any

4

evidence produced through said discovery: Plaintiff’s opening supplemental brief of no more than

5

five (5) pages is due by June 14, 2016; Defendant’s opposition of no more than five (5) pages is due

6

by June 21, 2016; and Plaintiff’s reply of no more than three (3) pages is due by June 28, 2016.

7

The hearings on Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendant’s motion to dismiss currently set

8

for April 19 and April 26, 2016, respectively, are hereby VACATED to be reset if necessary.

9

Accordingly, Defendant’s administrative motion to reset the hearing date is DENIED AS MOOT.

Northern District of California

This Order terminates Docket Number 26.

11

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: April 11, 2016
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2