Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01363/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES -

SHASTA, LLC, doing business 

as Shasta Regional Medical 

Center,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV NO.: 2:16-01363 WBS KJN

ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Services - Shasta, LLC 

initiated this action in Shasta County Superior Court against 

defendant Allstate Insurance Company, bringing breach of contract 

and California Business Code § 17200 claims arising out of 

medical services provided by plaintiff. Defendant removed this 

action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, (Docket No. 2), 

and plaintiff now moves to remand, (Docket No. 8).

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which 

Case 2:16-cv-01363-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, 

to the district court of the United States for the district . . . 

where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, if 

“it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases 

where complete diversity exists between the parties and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As the party seeking removal, 

defendant “has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Cohn 

v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $56,000 in damages. 

(Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”) (Docket No. 2-1).) The 

Declaration of John Nuelle in support of motion to remand 

confirms the claims at issue are no more than $56,000 and are 

below the amount-in-controversy requirement. (Nuelle Decl. Ex. A 

(Docket No. 8-3).) Plaintiff also seeks interest, costs, and

permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant from denying 

plaintiff’s bills. (See Compl. ¶ 24.)

In its notice of removal, defendant originally argued 

that the amount plaintiff allege they were underpaid was 

approximately $159,000 based on plaintiff’s theories of recovery 

and plaintiff’s equitable relief would require defendant to pay 

higher rates for future services provided to its members. 

(Notice of Removal ¶¶ 18-19 (Docket No. 2).) After reviewing 

plaintiff’s motion to remand and the claims at issue, defendant

Case 2:16-cv-01363-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

does not oppose the motion to remand on the basis that plaintiff 

seeks no more than $56,000 in damages and the amount-incontroversy requirement is not met. (Def.’s Notice of Non-Opp’n 

(Docket No. 10).) Thus, defendant has not shown that this case 

meets the amount-in-controversy requirement. Accordingly, the 

court must grant plaintiff’s motion to remand.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 

remand be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and this action is 

hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 

in and for the County of Shasta.

Dated: October 12, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01363-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 3