Zuboff v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying as moot 13 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 9/12/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-353-MOC-DCK
MARK ALAN ZUBOFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion To Remand”
(Document No. 13). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the
motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
The pro se Plaintiff’s pending “Motion To Remand” (Document No. 13) was filed on
June 21, 2013. On June 24, 2013, the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. issued an “Order”
(Document No. 14) addressing Plaintiff’s earlier “Objection To Removal” (Document No. 6) and
clearly finding remand is inappropriate here. Judge Cogburn specifically opined that “[a]fter
reviewing the complaint, . . . the court is satisfied that jurisdiction is proper and will therefore not
remand this matter to state court.” (Document No. 14, p.1).
Defendant UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “UHIC”) filed a brief
in opposition to the “Motion To Remand” on June 26, 2013. (Document No. 15). Defendant
essentially asserts that the motion is moot, and that the law, as recognized by Judge Cogburn,

preempts any state claims. (Document No. 15). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief in
support of his “Motion To Remand” and the time to do so has lapsed. See Local Rule 7.1 (E).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Remand” (Document
No. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 12, 2013

2