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)

Download PDF
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

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?