Imagine 360 Administrators, LLC v. Elevance Health, Inc.
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:26-cv-08365
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Imagine 360 Administrators v. Elevance Health, the magistrate judge ordered Elevance to explain why the case should not return to state court.
Imagine 360 Administrators, LLC and Elevance Health, Inc. are affected by the jurisdictional inquiry. Elevance must respond by August 31, 2026, and Imagine 360 may respond by September 8, 2026. The opinion does not yet determine whether the case will remain in federal court or return to state court.
What happened
In Imagine 360 Administrators, LLC v. Elevance Health, Inc., Elevance removed the case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court. The court questioned whether it had jurisdiction because Elevance had not provided enough information about the citizenship of Imagine 360’s owners or members.
The court found that Elevance provided enough information to show that more than $75,000 was at stake, but not enough to establish complete diversity of citizenship. Elevance must file a written explanation by August 31, 2026, addressing why the case should not be sent back to state court. Imagine 360 may respond by September 8, 2026.
The magistrate judge issued an order to show cause, but the court did not yet order a remand. The supplied opinion text does not clearly identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Imagine 360 Administrators, LLC v. Elevance Health, Inc. · No. 5:26-cv-08365
- Nathanael Cousins
- Aug. 17, 2026
Background
Elevance Health, Inc. removed this case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 12, 2026. The court issued an order requiring Elevance to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—why the case should not be remanded, or sent back, to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional issue
The opinion explains that federal district courts generally may hear cases involving a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between the opposing parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.
Elevance asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed. The opinion states that Elevance is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. Elevance alleged, on information and belief, that Imagine 360’s members are citizens of Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The court concluded that allegations based only on information and belief did not provide affirmative information sufficient to determine the citizenship of Imagine 360’s owners or members. Without that information, the court could not decide whether complete diversity existed.
The court did find that Elevance provided enough information to establish that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
Order
The court ordered Elevance to file a written response by August 31, 2026, explaining why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Imagine 360 may respond by September 8, 2026. The opinion does not state that the case was remanded; it sets a deadline for further responses. The judge’s name is not clearly legible in the supplied opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.