
    Sheik Zahid ALI; Safiya Zayna Ali, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (WESTERN), INC.; Rohm & Haas Company, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-15401.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    Filed March 3, 2011.
    Robert M. Desky, Esquire, Merrill Glen Emerick, Esquire, Anderlini & Emerick LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Christopher F. Johnson, Esquire, Richard M. Ozowski, Esquire, Maranga & Morgenstern, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The plaintiffs, Sheik Zahid Ali and Safiya Zayna Ali, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim against defendant, Trimac Transportation Services, Inc. The court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1).

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction, however, because the claim falls within the district court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1982).

Under California’s workers’ compensation law, an injured employee can pursue a claim in state court if the employer has not secured adequate workers’ compensation insurance. Cal. Lab.Code § 3706; see also Le Parc Cmty. Ass’n v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1172, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 (2003). The district court found that the employer had provided the requisite workers’ compensation insurance, relying principally upon the pleadings and the declarations attached to the motion to dismiss. The parties on appeal dispute the nature of the defendant’s insurance coverage and also dispute the employment status of Ali. There has been no discovery and no opportunity to develop adequately the record in support of a summary judgment motion. On the basis of the sparse record before this court, we are not in a position to resolve those issues.

We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment of dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     