California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-03552
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In California Spine v. JP Morgan, Judge Hamilton directed preparation for argument about federal jurisdiction and possible remand.
The plaintiff and defendants were affected because they were required to prepare for argument about federal jurisdiction, removal, and possible remand.
What happened
California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. concerns whether the defendants properly removed the action to federal court based on a federal question.
The court asked the parties to address whether a federal benefits law allowed removal and whether the case should be sent back to Alameda County Superior Court. It also asked the defendants to explain why the plaintiff’s failure to challenge removal would allow the federal court to keep jurisdiction.
Judge Hamilton directed the parties to prepare for the December 18, 2019 hearing and clarified that they should distinguish between two different federal-law preemption rules. This order did not state a final decision on jurisdiction, removal, or remand.
The detailed version
- California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 4:19-cv-03552
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute sued JP Morgan Chase & Co. and other defendants. The defendants removed the action from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court directed the parties to prepare for argument at a December 18, 2019 hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The central question was whether § 1132 allowed the defendants to remove the case based on a federal question.
The court specifically asked the parties to address whether Ninth Circuit precedent required remand to Alameda County Superior Court under § 1132’s complete-preemption doctrine. Complete preemption can allow a state-law claim to be treated as a federal claim for purposes of removal. The court also asked the defendants to provide authority supporting their position that the plaintiff’s failure to challenge removal based on complete preemption allowed the federal court to retain subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court further instructed the parties to use the correct statutory references: § 1132 for complete preemption and Title 29 U.S.C. § 1144 for express preemption.
Order
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the parties to prepare for the December 18, 2019 hearing. The opinion does not state a final ruling on the motion to dismiss, federal jurisdiction, removal, or remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund v…Mar 2022
- Heat and Frost Insulators of Northern California Local Union No. 16 Health and…Mar 2021
- District Council 16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund, and its…Oct 2020
- California Spinev. California
- Bay Areav. SLK
- California Spinev. JP Morgan