NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case No. 4:17-cv-00658

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

BRIAN S. LEE (Bar No. 233062)

TIANA SEYMORE (Bar No. 299189)

MARION’S INN LLP

1611 Telegraph Ave., Ste. 707

Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: (510) 451-6770

Facsimile: (510) 451-1711

Email: bl@marionsinn.com

tseymore@marionsinn.comm

Attorneys for Defendant 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. CLIFFORD and MARGARET 

CLIFFORD,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN,

INC., and DOES 1 through 21,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:17-cv-00658

Marin County Superior Court Case No. 

CIV1604502 __

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL 

ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION)

Complaint Filed: December 16, 2016

Case 3:17-cv-00658-MMC Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 5
1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case No. 4:17-cv-00658

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

TO THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, Defendant 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. hereby remove this action from California 

Superior Court for the County of Marin to the United Stated District Court for the Northern District 

of California. This notice of removal alleges federal question jurisdiction on the following grounds:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On December 16, 2016, plaintiffs JAMES M. CLIFFORD and MARGARET 

CLIFFORD, filed a civil action in the Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Case No. 

CIV1604502 (“state court action”). The state court action is entitled: James M. Clifford and 

Margaret Clifford v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and DOES 1-21. The case has been 

assigned to the Honorable Roy O. Chernus (Courtroom B) for all purposes. A copy of the 

Complaint for Damages is attached as Exhibit A.

2. Defendant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan was served on January 10, 2017. A Case 

Management Conference is scheduled for May 5, 2017 in Courtroom B. No further proceedings are 

pending at this time. A copy of the summons is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of the other papers 

that were served – notice of case management conference (civil) and alternative dispute resolution 

informational notice is attached as Exhibit C.

3. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan is the only defendant in this action.

4. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Statutory 

Duties, including violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1629(e)(9), 15 U.S.C. § 1629(e)(10) (incorrectly listed 

as 11 U.S. Code § 16929(e)(9) and 11 U.S. Code § 16929(e)(10)) and Cal. Civ. Code § 

1785.25(a)(incorrectly cited as California Code of Civil Procedure § 1785.25); (2) Negligence Per 

Se; (3) Intentional Breach of Statutory Duty; (4) Breach of Implied Contract; (5) Declaratory 

Relief.

5. The Complaint alleges as follows: Plaintiffs incurred more than $5000 in expenses 

when Plaintiffs’ twin children were delivered at a Kaiser Hospital. (Exh. A, Complaint 3:2-9). A 

Case 3:17-cv-00658-MMC Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 5
2

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case No. 4:17-cv-00658

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

balance of $414 is owing from these expenses. (Id. 3:6-12). Kaiser reported to the major credit 

reporting bureaus that Plaintiffs were more than 30 days late in paying the $414 balance. (Id. 3:12-

15).

6. In support of each of their claims, Plaintiffs allege that they disputed that the $414 

balance was owing and that Kaiser failed to report to the credit reporting bureaus that this was a 

disputed claim. (Id. 3:10-15). Plaintiffs allege that Kaiser continues to make false reports about 

plaintiffs’ disputed claim to the credit reporting bureaus. (Id. 3:15-16).

7. Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the reports to the credit reporting bureaus, 

plaintiffs have sustained declines in their creditworthiness. (Id. 3:17-23).

8. This Notice of Removal is timely filed since it is being filed within 30 days of the 

date of service as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 1446(b).

9. Jurisdiction. A civil action filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the 

federal court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This action may be 

removed because the Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d). Venue is proper within the Northern District of California under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) in 

that this action is presently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 

Marin, which is within the venue of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California.

II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL – FEDERAL QUESTION

10. Under the removal statute, "any civil action brought in a State court of which the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the Defendant" to 

federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction if the case presents a 

"federal question" or if the case "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

11. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, 

provides for federal jurisdiction if one or all of Plaintiff’s claims against a defendant are for alleged 

Case 3:17-cv-00658-MMC Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 5
3

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case No. 4:17-cv-00658

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

violation of the provisions of the FDCA. Congress intended for such claims to be tried in federal 

courts.

12. State statutory causes of action filed in state court for alleged violation of FDCA are 

removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Three out of Plaintiffs’ five causes of action 

are for alleged violation of FDCA1and related to alleged violation of consumer protections statute 

targeted to protect consumers from debt collection practices. Such claims are necessarily federal in 

character, arise under federal law, and are proper for removal to federal court under the wellpleaded complaint rule for removal. 

13. Plaintiffs’ two state law causes of action fall under the District Court’s supplemental 

jurisdiction because they are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that 

they form part of the same case of controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

14. The District Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted against 

Defendant in this action under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and Defendant may remove the action under 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) in that this action is one arising under the provisions of FDCA. 

15. Defendant files this Notice of Removal without waiving, and specifically reserving 

all objections and defenses which they may have under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and any other rules applicable to this motion. 

16. Intradistrict Assignment. Assignment to the Oakland or San Francisco division of 

this Court is appropriate because plaintiff filed the action in the Marin County Superior Court. 

N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-2(c), (d).

17. Written notice of this Notice of Removal is being immediately provided to the 

California Superior Court, County of Marin.

 

1

Plaintiffs mistakenly plead violations of 11 U.S. Code § 16929(e)(9) and 11 U.S. Code § 16929(e)(10). However, 

based on the nature of their claims, Defendant believes this is a typographical error. 

Case 3:17-cv-00658-MMC Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 4 of 5
4

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case No. 4:17-cv-00658

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

18. Written notice of this Notice of Removal of this action is being caused to be served 

on counsel for Plaintiff. There are no interested parties in this action other than plaintiffs and the 

defendant.

19. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the above action now pending against them in 

the Superior Court of California be removed to this United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California.

DATED: February 9, 2017

MARION’S INN LLP

By: /s/ Tiana Seymore

TIANA SEYMORE

Attorneys for Defendant 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00658-MMC Document 1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 5 of 5