California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE, Case No. 19-cv-03552-PJH 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DIRECTING PREPARATION v. FOR ARGUMENT ON REMAND FOR 10 LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants. 12 13 14 The court orders the parties in the above entitled action to prepare for argument at 15 the December 18, 2019 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss on the following 16 question: whether Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 entitled defendants to remove this action on the 17 basis of a federal question? 18 In particular, the parties should be prepared to address whether the Ninth Circuit’s 19 complete preemption analysis under Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 in Marin Gen. Hosp. v. 20 Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009) requires this court to 21 remand this action to the Alameda County Superior Court. Defendants should also be 22 prepared with specific authority to defend any position that plaintiff’s failure to challenge 23 removal for lack of complete preemption under Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 somehow allows 24 this court to maintain its federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Dkt. 25 at 25 5 (“Complete preemption is not at issue in the instant motion because the case was 26 already removed to this Court without opposition based on complete preemption. Federal 27 jurisdiction based on complete preemption is undisputed.”) (emphasis in the original). 1 Lastly, to remove any confusion, the parties should refer to the relevant 2 preemption doctrines according to their respective sections under Title 29—i.e., Title 29 3 U.S.C. § 1132 (complete preemption) or Title 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (express preemption). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 12, 2019 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27