Gay v. Guderjohn et al

Filing 14

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand this case to Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/12/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Remand Letter) (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

David Gay,

No. CV-15-01545-PHX-DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Almira D. Guderjohn, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

At the case management conference, the Court concluded that it likely lacks

16

subject matter jurisdiction, but granted Plaintiff’s request to file a memorandum citing

17

relevant authority. The Court has reviewed the memorandum (Doc. 13) and concludes

18

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

19

I.

Background.

20

Plaintiff was struck by a car while riding his motorcycle in July of 2013. Doc. 1-2

21

at 44. Plaintiff filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging negligence

22

and fraudulent transfer against the driver. Doc. 1-2 at 8-10. While litigating those

23

claims, Plaintiff received $177,045.26 from the C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. welfare

24

benefit plan (the Robinson Plan) for medical expenses. Id. at 46. The Robinson Plan is

25

governed by ERISA. Id.

26

Plaintiff moved pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) to add the

27

Robinson Plan as an involuntary plaintiff in the state case, and the state court granted the

28

motion. Doc. 1-2 at 36. Plaintiff then filed a motion challenging the validity of the

1

Robinson Plan’s lien rights against any settlement Plaintiff might receive from

2

Defendant. Id. at 44. The Robinson Plan filed a notice of removal, alleging that the

3

motion’s challenge to the subrogation rights of the ERISA plan raises a question of

4

federal law. Doc. 1 at 4-5.

5

II.

Analysis.

6

A cause of action arises under federal law “only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded

7

complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63

8

(1987). “The ‘well-pleaded complaint rule’ is the basic principle marking the boundaries

9

of federal question jurisdiction of the federal district courts.” Id.

10

Plaintiff has filed a motion challenging the Robinson Plan’s subrogation rights

11

(Doc. 1-2 at 44-50), but it is well settled that federal question jurisdiction must be based

12

on the complaint. Metro. Life Ins., 481 U.S. at 63. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no

13

ERISA-related claim and no challenge to the Robinson Plan’s subrogation rights. See

14

Doc. 1-2 at 8-10 (alleging only negligence and fraudulent transfer). The Court therefore

15

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

16

Plaintiff’s memorandum argues that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, but

17

none of the cases cited in the memorandum arose in the same procedural posture as this

18

case. In Speciale v. Seybold, 147 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 1998), the ERISA plan gave the

19

plaintiff notice that the plan was entitled to reimbursement. Id. at 614. The plaintiff filed

20

a motion in a pending state-court action to apportion settlement funds among the plan and

21

other lienholders, and the plan removed the case to federal court. Id. The plaintiff

22

argued on appeal that the case should not have been removed because “the motion to

23

adjudicate fell under her well-pleaded complaint which alleged a state law claim of

24

personal injury, neither of which presented a federal question.” Id. The Seventh Circuit

25

agreed, finding that the plaintiff’s “claim of personal injury was not a cause of action that

26

falls within the scope of an ERISA provision nor did her state law claim require

27

resolution of an interpretation of the contract governed by federal law.” Id. at 615. The

28

case was remanded to state court. Id. at 617.

-2-

1

In the other cases cited in the memorandum, the plaintiffs filed complaints that

2

named the ERISA plan as a defendant and raised a federal question. In White v. Humana

3

Health Plan, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-05546, 2007 WL 1297130 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2007), the

4

ERISA plan was a named defendant and the plaintiff challenged the plan’s subrogation

5

provisions in the complaint. Id. at *1. In Osterman v. Smith, No. 3:10-CV-03220, 2011

6

WL 1343056 (C.D. Ill. March 17, 2011), the plaintiff filed a petition that later became an

7

amended complaint after the case was removed to federal court. Id. (Doc. 12). The

8

petition was in all relevant respects a complaint – it contained numbered paragraphs,

9

named the ERISA plan as a defendant, and contained a prayer for relief. Id. In Wausau

10

Supply Co. v. Murphy, Nos. 13-CV-698-WMC, 13-CV-759-WMC, 2014 WL 2565555

11

(W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014), the plaintiff added the ERISA plan as a subrogated defendant

12

and the plan was allowed to assert counterclaims against the plaintiff. Id. at *2-3. The

13

case was removed to federal court after the plaintiff made a “claim that the ERISA plan

14

wrongfully sought reimbursement of previously paid health benefits.” Id. at *4.

15

Each of these cases included a complaint that raised ERISA issues, and removal of

16

the cases to federal court therefore complied with the well-pleaded complaint rule.

17

Plaintiff cites no case in which a federal court obtained subject-matter jurisdiction solely

18

on a federal question raised in a motion.

19
20
21

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand this case to Maricopa County
Superior Court.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2015.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-