McNally et al v. Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/2011 ORDERING supplemental briefing and VACATING the pretrial and trial dates. The parties are ORDERED to file, within 14 days of service of this order, supplemental briefing on the issue of wheth er plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted under ERISA, with a reply brief due 7 days thereafter. The Court further ORDERS the pretrial conference of 8/5/2011 and the trial date of 8/23/2011 VACATED to be reset after ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
EYE DOG FOUNDATION FOR THE
)
BLIND, INC., EYE DOG
)
FOUNDATION PROFIT SHARING
)
PLAN, GWEN BROWN, an individual, )
and DOES 1 through 50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
MONTRY MCNALLY; RUBY BELL;
and KENNETH BALES,

1:09-CV-1184 AWI SKO
ORDER FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
AND VACATING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE AND TRIAL
DATES

18
19

In addition to claims brought under ERISA, Plaintiffs bring claims under California law

20

for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4);

21

negligent misrepresentation; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (6)

22

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

23

While the parties have not addressed the issue, it appears to the Court that Plaintiffs’ state

24

law claims may be preempted under ERISA. ERISA § 514(a) preempts a state law claim if it

25

“relates to” an employee benefit plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). “In determining whether a state

26

law relates to ERISA, a court must evaluate whether the state law ‘has a connection with or

27

reference to’ employee benefit plans.” Bast v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 150 F.3d 1003, 1007

28

(9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

1

“In evaluating whether a common law claim has ‘reference to’ a plan governed by

2

ERISA, the focus is whether the claim is premised on the existence of an ERISA plan, and

3

whether the existence of the plan is essential to the claim’s survival. If so, a sufficient

4

‘reference’ exists to support preemption.” Providence Health Plan v. McDowell, 385 F.3d 1168,

5

1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “In determining whether a claim has a ‘connection

6

with’ an employee benefit plan, courts in this circuit use a relationship test. Specifically, the

7

emphasis is on the genuine impact that the action has on a relationship governed by ERISA, such

8

as the relationship between the plan and a participant.” Id. (citations omitted). Stated another

9

way, where “the existence of [an ERISA] plan is a critical factor in establishing liability” under a

10

state cause of action, the state law claim is preempted. Wise v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 600

11

F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). ERISA’s preemption provision functions

12

“even when the state action purport[s] to authorize a remedy unavailable under the federal

13

provision.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 144 (1990).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

15

1.

Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, the parties shall file

16

supplemental briefing on the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ state law claims are

17

preempted under ERISA;

18

2.

19
20

The parties may file a reply brief within seven (7) days of the filing of the
opposing parties’ brief; and

3.

The August 5, 2011 Pretrial Conference and August 23, 2011 Trial dates are

21

VACATED. The Court will set new dates for the Pretrial Conference and Trial

22

after the Court issues a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:
0m8i78

July 22, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2