Penning v. Medicinenet, Inc.
- Sallie Kim
- 4:25-cv-05992
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Penning v. Medicinenet, Judge Tigar granted Penning’s remand motion because WebMD did not establish federal jurisdiction after challenging Article III standing.
Stacy Penning and WebMD LLC, as well as the other named defendants, are affected by the order returning the case to California state court. The federal court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Stacy Penning v. Medicinenet, Inc., et al., WebMD LLC moved the case from California state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. WebMD later argued that Penning lacked Article III standing, meaning she had not shown the kind of injury required to sue in federal court.
Penning asked the court to send the case back to state court because WebMD had not met its burden to establish federal jurisdiction. WebMD asked the court to independently decide whether Penning had suffered a qualifying injury before ruling on remand.
JON S. TIGAR granted Penning’s motion to remand and sent the case to the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County. The court did not conduct its own standing analysis, and the clerk was ordered to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Penning v. Medicinenet, Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-05992
- Sallie Kim
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
WebMD LLC removed Penning’s case from the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA. The parties did not dispute that the allegations met CAFA’s requirements concerning citizenship and the amount in controversy.
Seven days after removal, WebMD moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey or, alternatively, to dismiss it under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). WebMD argued, among other things, that Penning lacked Article III standing. Article III standing is the requirement that a person seeking relief in federal court show a legally sufficient injury.
Penning moved to remand the case to state court and asked the court to pause briefing on WebMD’s transfer-or-dismiss motion while the court considered remand. The court paused that briefing and hearing schedule.
Analysis
The court explained that WebMD, as the party that invoked federal jurisdiction by removing the case, had the burden to establish the facts necessary to support jurisdiction, including Article III standing. WebMD argued that Penning lacked standing, and Penning did not argue otherwise.
The court declined WebMD’s request to conduct its own independent analysis of whether Penning had alleged a qualifying injury before deciding whether to remand. Relying on its prior decisions and other decisions cited in the opinion, the court concluded that a defendant does not meet its removal burden by invoking federal jurisdiction and then immediately arguing that the plaintiff lacks standing. The court also noted that, if the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the proper result under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) would be remand rather than dismissal.
The court rejected WebMD’s reliance on cases involving dismissals for lack of standing, explaining that those cases did not involve the same motion-to-remand issue or the removing defendant’s failure to establish jurisdiction at the time of removal.
Disposition
JON S. TIGAR granted Penning’s motion to remand. The case was remanded to the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County, and the clerk was ordered to close the federal file. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.