Opinion

The Regents of the University of California v. UnitedHealth Military and Veterans Services, LLC

Court
District Court, C.D. California
Filed
Feb 6, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.9%

The opinion

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE CV 19-6190 DSF (MAAx)

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, Order Remanding Case for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

v.

UNITEDHEALTHCARE

MILITARY & VETERANS

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

The Court previously issued an order to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Specifically,

the Court suggested that Plaintiff The Regents of the University of

California may be considered to be the State for the purposes of

diversity. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s response, and, while a

good effort, the response is ultimately not persuasive.

The Regents of the University of California have been found to be

an “arm” of the State of California for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir.

1997) (Eleventh Amendment analysis). While the Ninth Circuit has

only stated, in dicta, that the Eleventh Amendment test and the

diversity test are “similar,” Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071, 1073

(9th Cir. 1981), the Court sees no reason that the results of the two

tests should diverge unless there is a persuasive argument regarding

the entity in question. The University of California is a state

institution, funded by the state, and ultimately defended by the state.

The only members of the 26-member Board of Regents who are not

elected state officials or members appointed by the Governor of

California — are the university president, two alumni association

officials, and a single student member who is chosen by the other

Regents. The Court acknowledges that the Regents can sue and be

sued in their own name — if not, presumably this discussion would be

unnecessary — can hold property in their own name and are organized

as a separate corporate entity from the state. But these characteristics

are not enough to suggest that the Court should diverge from the Ninth

Circuit’s Eleventh Amendment conclusion.

The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County

of Los Angeles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 6, 2020 / To Pe

AMON A. □□□

Dale 8. Fischer

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.