Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Bay Area Surgical Management, LLC v. Principal Life Insurance Company

August 24, 2012

BAY AREA SURGICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

(Re: Docket No. 15)

Pending before the court is Plaintiff Bay Area Surgical Management, LLC's ("Bay Area")

Motion to Remand. For the reasons discussed below, Bay Area's motion to remand is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2012, Bay Area filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of 21 California for the County of Santa Clara against Defendant Principal Life Insurance Company 22

("Principal") alleging breach of contract, violation of the California Business & Professions Code 23

17200 et seq., negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. See Notice 24 of Removal Ex. A ("Compl."), Docket No. 1. According to the Complaint, Bay Area is a citizen of 25

California. Id. ¶ 12. The Complaint does not allege Principal's citizenship, but the Notice of 26

Removal states that Principal is a citizen of Iowa. See Notice of Removal at 4:20-27, Docket No. 1. 27

The Complaint states that it seeks $124,208.27 in damages. Compl. ¶ 32, at 11:20-21.

Principal removed the action to this court on March 7, 2012 based on federal question 2 jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2-4. On April 2, 2012, Bay Area filed the First 3 Amended Complaint ("FAC"). See Docket No. 14. According to the FAC, Bay Area seeks $74,500 4 in damages. Id.¶ 34, 36, at 10:20-21. 5

On, April 4, 2012, Bay Area filed this motion to remand the case to state court, arguing the 6 federal court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. See Docket No. 15. On July 10, 7 L.R. 7-1(b). 9 had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal 12 subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) 13 diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If it appears at any time before final judgment that 14 the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the federal court must remand the action to state 15 court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal 16 jurisdiction. Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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