Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simpson Holdings, L.C. v. Buchanan

United States District Court, D. Utah

November 13, 2018

SIMPSON HOLDINGS, L.C., Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES R. BUCHANAN AND KIMBERLY D. BUCHANAN, Defendants.

          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.

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         According 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.

         After 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         According 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.

         Defendants have the burden to show the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence.[1] In addition, “[r]emoval statutes are to be strictly construed, and all doubts are to be resolved against removal.”[2]

         In this 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 evidence.[3]

         A. Diversity

         Under 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 entities' members.”[4]

         Although “Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties are of diverse citizenship, ”[5] “[a] court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”[6] 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.[7] While this is the applicable rule for determining the citizenship of a corporation, the Supreme ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.