Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03552/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SPINE AND 

NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03552-PJH

ORDER DIRECTING PREPARATION 

FOR ARGUMENT ON REMAND FOR 

LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

The court orders the parties in the above entitled action to prepare for argument at 

the December 18, 2019 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss on the following 

question: whether Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 entitled defendants to remove this action on the 

basis of a federal question? 

In particular, the parties should be prepared to address whether the Ninth Circuit’s 

complete preemption analysis under Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 in Marin Gen. Hosp. v. 

Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009) requires this court to 

remand this action to the Alameda County Superior Court. Defendants should also be 

prepared with specific authority to defend any position that plaintiff’s failure to challenge 

removal for lack of complete preemption under Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 somehow allows 

this court to maintain its federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Dkt. 25 at 

5 (“Complete preemption is not at issue in the instant motion because the case was

already removed to this Court without opposition based on complete preemption. Federal 

jurisdiction based on complete preemption is undisputed.”) (emphasis in the original). 

Case 4:19-cv-03552-PJH Document 26 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Lastly, to remove any confusion, the parties should refer to the relevant 

preemption doctrines according to their respective sections under Title 29—i.e., Title 29 

U.S.C. § 1132 (complete preemption) or Title 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (express preemption).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03552-PJH Document 26 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 2