Koerner

MEMORANDUM **

Clayton Koerner, a California insurance broker, appeals from district court orders denying his motions to remand and to voluntarily dismiss, and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Aetna U.S. Healthcare, in Koerner’s diversity action alleging that Aetna violated California law by directly soliciting and contracting with Koerner’s customers. Since removal was proper based on diversity jurisdiction, and Koerner failed to present evidence to establish damages, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koerner’s motion for voluntary dismissal. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s ruling denying a motion to remand. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT & T *396 Corp., 298 F.3d 756 , 760 (9th Cir.2002). Koerner asserts the district court should have remanded the action because Aetna failed to timely file a copy of the notice of removal with the state court clerk as 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d) required. This contention is unavailing. Procedural requirements for removal, such as the timely filing of the notice of removal, are “formal and modal,” not jurisdictional. See Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals, Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir.1980). The…