Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02721/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02721-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The court finds the motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. See

Civil L.R. 7-1(b); see also Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir.1998); Lake at Las

Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-02721 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMAND

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

OF NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Regents of the University of California

(“U.C. Regents”) for an order remanding the above-entitled action to the Superior Court of

California, County of Alameda. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered

their arguments, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.1

Defendant Indemnity Insurance Company of North American (“Indemnity”) removed

this action on May 23, 2007, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Indemnity

asserted complete diversity between the U.C. Regents – alleged to be a citizen of the State

of California – and Indemnity, which is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. 

The U.C. Regents argue that the case should be remanded for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. When lack of subject matter jurisdiction is raised in diversity cases, the burden

of proving the jurisdictional facts rests on the party seeking jurisdiction. Kanter v. WarnerCase 4:07-cv-02721-PJH Document 28 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Indemnity also seeks an order transferring venue to the Central District of California.

In view of the court’s finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the motion

to transfer is DENIED as moot.

2

Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, the court finds that Indemnity has failed to meet its burden of establishing a

basis for federal jurisdiction. The U.C. Regents is an arm of the State of California. 

Armstrong v. Meyers, 964 F.2d 948, 949 (9th Cir. 1992). As an “alter ego” of the State of

California, the U.C. Regents cannot be considered a “citizen of” the State of California for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the court finds that the action must be remanded to the Alameda

County Superior Court.2

 The date for the hearing on the motion, previously set for

Wednesday, August 15, 2007, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02721-PJH Document 28 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2