United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Stewart United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Simpson Holdings,
L.C.'s Motion to Remand to State Court and
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the foregoing reasons,
the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and denies
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.
to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff operated a
residential treatment facility in Wellsville, Utah and
entered into an agreement (“Admissions
Agreement”) on May 20, 2015, to care for and treat the
Buchanans' (“Defendants”) daughter.
Defendants' daughter was in Plaintiff's treatment
facility from May 20, 2015, through April 28, 2017. Plaintiff
says the regular rate for its facility is $15, 000 a month,
but Plaintiff gives a discount for patients who are uninsured
and self-paying. In this case, Defendants had insurance, but
the Admissions Agreement states Defendants owe a total of $8,
900 (self pay) every month.
arbitration with the insurance company, Defendants'
insurance paid Plaintiff the customary $15, 000 per month
from May 20, 2015, to April 11, 2016 (the “Covered
Period”) but would not pay the amount from April 12,
2016, to April 28, 2017 (the “Uncovered Period”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff received $80, 163.40 from
Defendants' insurance company. Plaintiff returned some of
the insurance money to Defendants but kept $65, 601.94 (the
“Insurance Proceeds”), claiming this amount is
the difference between the customary rate and the self-pay
rate for the Covered Period. Defendants sent a letter on
April 26, 2018, requesting the remaining $65, 601.94 from
Plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to return the money and filed
suit in state court requesting a declaratory judgment that
Plaintiff is entitled to the Insurance Proceeds and that
Defendants do not have any right to the Insurance Proceeds.
filed its First Amended Complaint in the First District of
Utah in Cache County on June 14, 2018, and Defendants were
served on June 21, 2018. On July 18, 2018, Defendants filed a
Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff
now seeks remand.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,
any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.
have the burden to show the jurisdictional facts by a
preponderance of the evidence. In addition, “[r]emoval
statutes are to be strictly construed, and all doubts are to
be resolved against removal.”
case, Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction, so Defendants must show (A) the parties are
diverse and (B) “the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and
costs” by a preponderance of the
28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the
parties must be diverse for federal jurisdiction and
removability. To determine the citizenship of unincorporated
business entities, “federal courts must include all the
“Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties are of
diverse citizenship, ” “[a] court always has
jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction.” In their Notice of Removal, Defendants
concluded that Plaintiff is a citizen of Utah because it is
organized in Utah and has its principal place of business in
Utah. While this is the applicable rule for
determining the citizenship of a corporation, the Supreme