Karen Nolan, et al. v. Columbus Life Insurance Company, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-00424
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 KAREN NOLAN, et al., Case No. 26-cv-00424-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT FOR LACK OF COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE SUBJECT MATTER 14 COMPANY, et al., JURISDICTION 15 Defendants. Re: ECF 1 16 17 Defendant Columbus Life Insurance Company removed this case to this Court from 18 Santa Cruz County Superior Court on January 15, 2026. ECF 1. This Order requires 19 Columbus Life to “show cause” by filing a written response by February 10, 2026, 20 explaining why this case should not be remanded back to state court of lack of subject 21 matter jurisdiction. 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction 24 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity 25 jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater 26 than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 27 Columbus Life alleges that there is complete diversity of citizenship because 1 of Santa Cruz, State of California,” “Plaintiff Susan Mullins was a resident of Durham, 2 North Carolina,” Defendant Columbus Life is a corporation organized under the laws of 3 Ohio with its principal place of business in Ohio, “Defendant Daniel G. Anstett, Jr., d/b/a 4 Anstett Financial is a resident of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, California,” and 5 Defendant Burgess Group, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Utah with its 6 principal place of business in Utah. ECF 1 ¶¶ 20–24. Even if Columbus Life is able to 7 persuasively argue that simply being a past resident of a state equates to being a citizen of 8 that state, Columbus still fails to plead diversity jurisdiction. Cf. District of Columbia v. 9 Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941) (emphasis added) (“The place where a man lives is 10 properly taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary”). This is 11 because Plaintiffs E. Anderson, L. Anderson, and Bergstrom, and Defendant Anstett are 12 allegedly citizens of the same state—California. Therefore, each plaintiff is not a citizen 13 of a different state than each of the defendants, and diversity jurisdiction is destroyed. See 14 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). It is irrelevant that Anstett has not been served. See Clarence E. 15 Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1969) (“Whenever federal jurisdiction 16 in a removal case depends upon complete diversity, the existence of diversity is 17 determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of 18 service.”). Thus, Columbus Life has not sufficiently alleged complete diversity. 19 The Court finds that Columbus Life provided sufficient information to establish that 20 the amount in controversy threshold is satisfied. ECF 1 ¶ 30. 21 In conclusion, Columbus Life has not established that federal subject matter 22 jurisdiction is satisfied because it did not establish complete diversity. Accordingly, 23 Columbus Life must show cause in writing by February 10, 2026, why this case should not 24 be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may 25 respond by February 17, 2026. 26 Defendants are cautioned that an order remanding the case “may require payment of 27 just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 |) Dated: January 27, 2026 h&——~ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 3 United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 12

Zz 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28