California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company

N.D. California

California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company

DecidedMarch 30, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-08185

StatusUnknown

This text of California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company (California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SPINE AND Case No. 20-cv-08185-VC NEUROSURGERY INSTITUE, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO y REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 18 CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

There is no complete ERISA preemption. See Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 947-50 (9th Cir. 2009); The Meadows v. Employers Health Insurance, 47 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995); Blue Cross of California v. Anesthesia Care Associates Medical Group, Inc., 187 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir.1999); see Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004). In particular, there is no meaningful distinction between this case and Marin General. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the California Superior Court, San Mateo County.!

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2021 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

' The defendant’s motion for leave to file a late opposition is granted, and the Court considered the opposition in making its decision.

rT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SPINE AND Case No. 20-cv-08185-VC NEUROSURGERY INSTITUE, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO y REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 18 CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

There is no complete ERISA preemption. See Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 947-50 (9th Cir. 2009); The Meadows v. Employers Health Insurance, 47 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995); Blue Cross of California v. Anesthesia Care Associates Medical Group, Inc., 187 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir.1999); see Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004). In particular, there is no meaningful distinction between this case and Marin General. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the California Superior Court, San Mateo County.!

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2021 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

' The defendant’s motion for leave to file a late opposition is granted, and the Court considered the opposition in making its decision.

rT

Blue Cross of California v. Anesthesia Care Associates Medical Group, Inc.,defendant-Appellee. Blue Cross of California v. Anesthesiology Consultants of Contra Costa County Medical Group, Inc., Blue Cross of California v. Kern Bone and Joint Specialists, Incorporated, Blue Cross of California v. Beaver Medical Clinic, Inc.

187 F.3d 1045 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co.

581 F.3d 941 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-spine-and-neurosurgery-institue-v-cigna-health-and-life-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack