Karen Hansen v. Group Health Cooperative (2018)

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2018).

See McCray, 902 F.3d at 1010 (“A defendant can’t rely on a CBA as an aspect of 26 her defense simply to inject a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law 27 claim.”) (cleaned up). 1 Reynoso alleges that Recology’s “violation of the Arbitration Award constituted unlawful 2 retaliation,” is unavailing.

See 14 Hansen, 902 F.3d at 1059 (“We need not decide if Davila’s first prong is met, because federal 15 court jurisdiction is lacking if either of these interrelated prongs is not satisfied, and Davila’s 16 second prong, in our view, is readily shown to be unmet.”). 17 “The controlling question for [the Court] under Davila is whether a claim relies on the 18 violation of a legal duty that arises independently of the plaintiff’s, or their assignor’s, ERISA 19 plan.” Id. (citi…

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Home Depot, 587 U.S. at 437 (observing that “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases”).

Health 10 Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”); Hansen, 902 F.3d at 1057 (“We must exercise prudence and restraint when assessing the propriety of removal because determinations about federal jurisdiction require sensitive judgments about congressional intent, judicial power, and the federal system.”) (simplified).

Health 4 Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 4 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Home Depot, 587 U.S. at 437 (observing that “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases”).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) 27 (citing Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health 23 Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051 , 1057 27 (9th Cir. 2018) (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance 28 of the evidence supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 1 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 2 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (“If a district court 21 determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence supports the right of 22 removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 23 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 24 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018). 1 Nevada.”17 The plaintiffs also submit a proof-of-service document filed on the same day, in 2 which Herson handwrote the same Reno address.18 And they provide a change-of-address form 3 that shows that Herson notified the state court that his new address was a post-office box in 4 Arizona more than a month after this suit was filed.19 Herson submits his own evidence in 5 response to the plaintiffs’ motion—a letter from Far…

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 14 (“Removal based on federal-question jurisdiction is reviewed under the longstanding well- 15 pleaded complaint rule.”). “[T]he presence of a federal question . . . in a defensive argument does 16 not overcome the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule—that the 17 plaintiff is the master of the complaint, that a federal question must appear on the face of the 18 complaint, and that the plaintiff may,…

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 18 (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence 19 supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 20 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 21 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 16 (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence 17 supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 18 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 19 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018)—and so she could have triggered the deadlines in the very way she seeks to enforce now with no chance for Defendant to protest.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 8 (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence 9 supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 10 A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction to properly adjudicate a 11 dispute.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). 14 Traditional diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity” 15 of citizenship among the parties.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 10 (internal quotation and citation omitted), and any doubt about removal weighs in favor of remand, 11 see Hawaii ex rel.

(Id. at 5-8.) 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 A. Removal Jurisdiction 5 In Hansen v. Group Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018)1, the Ninth Circuit 6 explained, A plaintiff is the master of the plaintiff's complaint [] and has the choice of 7 pleading claims for relief under state or federal law (or both).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 3 (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence 4 supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 5 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 6 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Corp., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations 25 omitted).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 25 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 389–99 (1987)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health 26 Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). 27 “A plaintiff who contests the existence of removal jurisdiction may file a motion to 28 remand.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1447(c)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) 24 (citing Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Geographic 12 Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.

Health Cooperative, 21 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 8 (“If a district court determines at any time that less than a preponderance of the evidence 9 supports the right of removal, it must remand the action to the state court.”). 10 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 11 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) 10 (“Removal based on federal-question jurisdiction is reviewed under the longstanding well- 11 pleaded complaint rule.”). “[T]he presence of a federal question . . . in a defensive argument does 12 not overcome the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule—that the 13 plaintiff is the master of the complaint, that a federal question must appear on the face of the 14 complaint, and that the plaintiff may,…

Id.; see also Hansen v. Grp. 3 Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (“If a district court determines at any 4 time that less than a preponderance of the evidence supports the right of removal, it must 5 remand the action to the state court.”). 6 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may arise based on federal question or diversity 7 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 1332(a).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 19 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 389–99 (1987)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 25 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 389–99 (1987)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1 2018).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 26 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 389–99 (1987)).

Health Corp., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th 17 Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 14 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 389–99 (1987)).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The removing defendant bears the 6 burden of overcoming the ‘strong presumption against removal jurisdiction’”) (internal 7 citations omitted); Ramirez v. Windsor Care Ctr.

Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051 , 1057 5 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Removal based on federal-question jurisdiction is reviewed under the 6 longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 398–399 7 (1987) (detailing “the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule” including 8 “that a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint”) (emphasis added); id. at 392 9 (“[T]he ‘well-pleaded complaint rule’ [] provides that …

Health Cooperative, 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The removing defendant bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).