Case Information
*1 Case 1:05-cv-01537-MSK-MJW Document 41 Filed 11/02/05 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 05 cv 01537 MSK MJW
HEALTHTRAN LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
CYPRESS CARE, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company,
CYPRESS CARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
JOHN DOES I X,
ABC CORPORATION I V, and
XYZ PARTNERSHIPS I V,
Defendants. ORDER VACATING ORDER TO REMAND (#32), DENYING MOTION TO REMAND (#31), AND DISCHARGING SHOW CAUSE ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (#31) , to which Defendants Cypress Care, LLC and Cypress Care, Inc. (collectively, “Cypress”) have responded (#37) . Having considered the same, the Court
FINDS and CONCLUDES that: On September 26, 2005, the Court directed the Plaintiff (“HealthTran”) to show cause why its claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It was not apparent from the allegations in the Amended Complaint that the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The parties then filed a motion to stay this case while they awaited consummation of their settlement agreement. The Court denied that motion. HealthTran then sought an enlargement of *2 Case 1:05-cv-01537-MSK-MJW Document 41 Filed 11/02/05 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
time to file a Second Amended Complaint in response to the Court’s show cause order. It also requested, in the alternative, that the case be remanded to state court.
The Court at first granted the motion to remand, erroneously believing that it was unopposed. After learning that the motion was opposed, the Court stayed its remand order pending a showing of subject matter jurisdiction by any party. The Court also granted HealthTran a short enlargement of time until October 28, 2005 to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies of the Amended Complaint.
HealthTran has filed a Second Amended Complaint, and Cypress filed a response to the motion to remand. Both the Second Amended Complaint and Cypress’ response demonstrate that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over HealthTran’s claims. Because HealthTran requested a remand in the alternative to filing a Second Amended Complaint, its motion to remand is now moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) The Court’s Order to Remand (#32) is VACATED .
(2) The Motion to Remand (#31) is DENIED, as moot.
(3) The Order to Show Cause (#25) is DISCHARGED .
Dated this 2nd day of November, 2005.
BY THE COURT: Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge 2