Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Prime Healthcare Services-Shasta, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 22, 2011

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DOING BUSINESS AS SHASTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BLUE CROSS-BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

RELATED CASE ORDER; AND ORDER REMANDING CASES

2:11-cv-02665-JAM-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. REGENCE BLUE CROSS CLUE SHIELD OF OREGON, an Oregon Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02666-MCE-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. BCBST, INC., a Tennessee Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02667-JAM-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS CLUE SHIELD OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02668-MCE-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02669-MCE-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES- SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02670-JAM-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES- SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. BCBSM, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. 2:11-cv-02691-GEB-CMK PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Shasta Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, a North Carolina Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant.

A "Notice of Related Cases" document has been filed in which it is asserted that the above-captioned actions concern "the same or substantially related . . . or similar questions of law and fact[.]" The above-captioned actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed case was assigned.

Therefore, actions 2:11-cv-02665-JAM-CMK, 2:11-cv-02666-MCE- CMK, 2:11-cv-02667-JAM-CMK, 2:11-cv-02668-MCE-CMK, 2:11-cv-02669-MCE- CMK, and 2:11-cv-02670-JAM-CMK are reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. Further, 2:11- cv-02691-GEB-CMK is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Delaney. Henceforth the caption on any document filed in the reassigned actions shall include the following initials: "GEB-CKD."

The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for these reassignments. Further, the Court sua sponte considers whether subject matter removal jurisdiction exists. Each case was removed from state court on the basis of diversity removal jurisdiction, which has not been shown to exist.

"There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and the removing party has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 398861, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the basis of removal of each case is asserted to be diversity jurisdiction, the removant has not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of all owners/members of Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Services-Shasta, LLC. "For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, . . . a limited liability corporation is a citizen of all of the states of which its owners/members are citizens. . . . [;and,] the citizenship of all members of limited liability corporations . . . [must] be alleged." Id.

Since the removant has failed to show diversity of citizenship removal jurisdiction, each case is remanded to the California Superior Court in the County of Shasta, from which it was removed, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111122

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.