Board of Trustees of Alameda County Medical Center v. Costco Employee Benefits Program

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 13 Defendant's motion for clarification and (2) VACATING 11 the court's December 12, 2012 order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss and remanding the action to Alameda County Superior Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/19/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
13
14

v.
COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PROGRAM,

15
Defendant.
16

No. C 12-04609 LB
ORDER (1) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND (2)
VACATING THE COURT’S
DECEMBER 12, 2012 ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS AND REMANDING THE
ACTION TO ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

17
[Re: ECF Nos. 5, 13]
18
19

_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Board of Trustees of Alameda County Medical Center (“ACMC”) sued Costco

20

Employee Benefits Program (the “Plan”) in Alameda County Superior Court for (1) breach of oral

21

contract, (2) violation of California Health & Safety Code § 1371.4, and (3) quantum meruit.

22

Complaint, ECF No. 1, Ex. A. The Plan removed the action to federal court on the basis that

23

ACMC’s claims are “completely preempted” by § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income

24

Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 1, ¶ 4. The Plan

25

moved to dismiss ACMC’s claims because the Plan believed that the claims are “conflict

26

preempted” under ERISA § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

27

On December 12, 2012, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Plan’s

28

motion to dismiss and remanding the action to Alameda County Superior Court. 12/12/2012 Order,
C 12-04609 LB
ORDER

1

ECF No. 11. In the order, the court dismissed with prejudice ACMC’s § 1371.4 claim because

2

ACMC conceded at the December 6, 2012 hearing that the Plan’s arguments in its motion were

3

correct regarding that claim. The court also found, however, that ACMC’s breach of contract and

4

quantum meruit claims are not completely preempted under ERISA § 502(a), and remanded this

5

action to Alameda County Superior Court. 12/12/2012 Order, ECF No. 11.

6

Two days later, the Plan filed a motion asking the court to clarify if it meant to remand the

1371.4 claim carried the day (and thus removal was proper because that claim is completely

9

preempted). Motion for Clarification, ECF No. 13 (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592

10

F.2d 102, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979)). Upon review of the motion, the court GRANTS the motion and

11

VACATES its prior December 12, 2012 order. The court will issue an amended order granting in

12
For the Northern District of California

action, given that ACMC conceded at oral argument that the Plan’s arguments regarding ACMC’s §

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

part and denying in part the Plan’s motion to dismiss that, rather than remanding the action, declines

13

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ACMC’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims

14

and dismisses them without prejudice.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: December 19, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 12-04609 LB
ORDER

2