Ali v. Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc.

417 F. App'x 706
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 3, 2011
Docket09-15401
StatusUnpublished

This text of 417 F. App'x 706 (Ali v. Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ali v. Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc., 417 F. App'x 706 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The plaintiffs, Sheik Zahid Ali and Safiya Zayna Ali, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim against defendant, Trimac Transportation Services, Inc. The court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1).

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction, however, because the claim falls within the district court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1982).

Under California’s workers’ compensation law, an injured employee can pursue a claim in state court if the employer has not secured adequate workers’ compensation insurance. Cal. Lab.Code § 3706; see also Le Parc Cmty. Ass’n v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1172, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 (2003). The district court found that the employer had provided the requisite workers’ compensation insurance, relying principally upon the pleadings and the declarations attached to the motion to dismiss. The parties on appeal dispute the nature of the defendant’s insurance coverage and also dispute the employment status of Ali. There has been no discovery and no opportunity to develop adequately the record in support of a summary judgment motion. On the basis of the sparse record before this court, we are not in a position to resolve those issues.

We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment of dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Esther Lee Begay, Etc. v. The Kerr-Mcgee Corporation
682 F.2d 1311 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Le Parc Community Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 F. App'x 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-trimac-transportation-services-western-inc-ca9-2011.