California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Opinion

NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE, Case No. 19-cv-03552-PJH Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PREPARATION v. FOR ARGUMENT ON REMAND FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants.

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). 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). Dated: December 12, 2019 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge