Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00677-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAGERTY INSURANCE AGENCY and 

ESSENTIA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00677-DAD-BAM

ORDER

(Doc. No. 10)

On May 11, 2016, defendants Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia Insurance 

Company removed this action from the Stanislaus County Superior Court on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 22, 2016, plaintiff Ray Gibson, proceeding pro se in this 

action, filed an opposition to the removal of this case from state court. (Doc. No. 10.) Because 

this opposition is not presented as a properly noticed motion pursuant to Local Rule 230, this 

court declines to address plaintiff’s filing or to construe it as a motion to remand the case. 

Alternatively, to the extent plaintiff’s opposition is intended as a request to remand this 

case, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to present a sufficient basis for remand. See, e.g., 

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). A defendant in state court 

may remove a civil action to federal court so long as that case could originally have been filed in 

federal court. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Thus, removal of a state action may be based on 

Case 1:16-cv-00677-BAM Document 14 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. City of Chicago, 522 U.S. at 163; 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Once a case is removed to federal court, a 

party challenging the removal may move to remand the case on the basis of a lack of diversity 

jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity, i.e. that citizenship of each plaintiff is different 

from that of each defendant. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 

2009); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Here, plaintiff’s opposition to removal is based primarily on his age and health condition. 

Thus, plaintiff argues, it will be inconvenient to personally travel to this U.S. District Court. 

Because this is an insufficient basis for challenging the removal of this action, the court denies 

plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff is, however, free to file a properly noticed motion to remand if he so 

chooses. 

Plaintiff is further advised that in this case, telephonic appearances before the undersigned

are encouraged. (See Doc. No. 4-1.) Parties may appear at hearings telephonically by contacting 

the court at (559) 499−5650 at least forty-eight hours in advance of any scheduled hearing in 

order to make the necessary arrangements for electronic appearance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00677-BAM Document 14 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2