Yvette McKoy v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al
Filing
47
MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order Remanding Case to State Court: Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the state court from which it was removed IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King (cc Copy of Minute Order, Docket Sheet and Letter fo Remand to Norwalk Superior Court, Case number VC053708) (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Remand - CV 103) (ir)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 09-8682-GHK (JCx)
Title
Yvette McKoy v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al.
Presiding: The Honorable
Beatrice Herrera
Deputy Clerk
Date
September 28, 2011
GEORGE H. KING, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order Remanding Case to State Court
Consistent with her position at the September 16, 2011 status conference, Plaintiff Yvette McKoy
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) on September 21, 2011, that only asserts claims
under state law and does not assert claims for breach of the implied contract of continued employment or
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which we previously held were
completely preempted by the LMRA. (Dkt. No. 41). Further, Plaintiff’s statement of jurisdiction states
that the case arises under the laws of the State of California and makes no allegations of diversity
jurisdiction.
As a court of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994), we must determine the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a
case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). We have original jurisdiction
over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331. “In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction, we apply the ‘well-pleaded
complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375
F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, if a case does not arise
under federal law, we have original jurisdiction only where there is “diversity of citizenship.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332. “[J]urisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that parties be in complete diversity and the
amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089,
1090 (9th Cir. 2003). “[D]iversity is not complete if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 1990).
As discussed above, the 4AC only alleges claims arising under state law. Therefore, it does not
appear that this case presents a federal question. As both the Plaintiff and Defendant are California
citizens, (4AC ¶ 5-6), it does not appear that diversity jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, this case is hereby
REMANDED to the state court from which it was removed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
IR for Bea
Page 1 of 1
]]>
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?
