CYBERKNIFE MIAMI
v.
NATIONAL GENERAL ACCIDENT & HEALTH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand should be granted because the addition of a non-diverse party destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff sued insurance companies in state court for coverage. Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity. Plaintiff amended its…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Complete Diversity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
and AETNA HEALTH, INC.
Defendants. ______________________________________/
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (DE 34), filed July 15, 2022.1 After careful consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand should be granted for the reasons stated herein. By way of background, Plaintiff filed this action in state court on January 21, 2022. See DE 1-2. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant insurance companies failed to provide coverage for medical services Plaintiff provided to Defendants’ insured pursuant to an insurance policy. Id. Defendants removed this action to federal court on March 10, 2022 based on diversity of citizenship. See Not. Removal, DE 1.
On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint (DE 15) seeking to replace Defendant Aetna, Inc. with Aetna Health, Inc. to correct, as Plaintiff argues, a
Removal from state court is proper only if the complaint raises a federal question or the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires “complete diversity”—the citizenship of every plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of every defendant. See, e.g., Palmer Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cnty., 22 F. 3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Court has already determined that Plaintiff was allowed to add the non-diverse party, Aetna Health, Inc. Both parties have also previously acknowledged before the Court that the addition of Aetna Health, Inc. would destroy diversity. When Plaintiff amended its Complaint with leave of Court to correct the name of the Defendant Aetna Health, Inc., diversity jurisdiction was quashed. Both Plaintiff and Aetna Health, Inc. are citizens of Florida. See Not. of Removal at 2; See also DE 34-1. As such, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the instant case and remand to the state court is proper.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (DE 34) be, and the same is, hereby GRANTED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the above-styled action is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, from where it was removed. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United States Courthouse, at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of August, 2022.