Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617-13/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case Nos. 15-MD-02617-LHK; 15-CV-2873-LHK

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE MOTION TO REMAND

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH 

LITIGATION

MONICA SABATINO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

HMO MISSOURI, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING RE MOTION TO REMAND

Case No. 15-CV-2873-LHK

Plaintiffs Monica Sabatino and Michael Sabatino (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring a 

putative class action against defendants HMO Missouri, Inc. and Healthy Alliance Life Insurance 

Company (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of a cyberattack on the computer system of 

Defendants’ parent company, Anthem, Inc. (“Anthem”). Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to 

remand the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, 22d Judicial Circuit, in the State of 

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 212 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case Nos. 15-MD-02617-LHK; 15-CV-2873-LHK

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE MOTION TO REMAND

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

Missouri. ECF No. 15.

1

Although this action was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, which sits in the Eighth 

Circuit, this Court should apply Ninth Circuit law to the instant motion to remand. See Newton v. 

Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that “when reviewing federal claims, a 

transferee court in this circuit is bound only by our circuit’s precedent”); see also In re Gen. Am. 

Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 391 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2004) (“When a transferee court 

receives a case from the MDL Panel, the transferee court applies the law of the circuit in which it 

is located to issues of federal law.”); In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach 

Litig., 996 F. Supp. 2d 942, 959 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (“In interpreting federal law, a transferee court in 

a multidistrict case should look to the law of its own circuit rather than the law of the transferor 

courts’ circuits.”).

Because the current briefing does not cite relevant Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court 

hereby ORDERS the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs not to exceed ten (10) pages 

in length. The briefs shall be filed no later than September 4, 2015. The hearing on the motion to 

remand set for September 10, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. remains as set. At a minimum, the parties’ briefs 

should address the recent decisions granting motions to remand in other Anthem data breach cases 

removed to district courts in the Ninth Circuit. See Smilow v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health 

Ins. Co., No. CV 15-4556-MWF(AGRX), 2015 WL 4778824 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2015) (granting 

motion to remand); Wickens v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., No. 15CV834-GPC JMA, 2015 WL 

4255129 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) (remanding case to state court).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

 

1 All ECF references are to the docket of Case No. 15-CV-2873-LHK.

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 212 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 2