B et al v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 22, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JEFFERY B.; JAMISON B.,

No. C 14-2253 MMC

Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY; BLUE CROSS OF
CALIFORNIA INC.; ANTHEM UM
SERVICES, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR FEES
AND COSTS

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14

Defendants.

/

15
16

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion, filed June 13, 2014, to remand the above-titled

17

action to the Superior Court of the State of California. Defendants have filed opposition,

18

and plaintiff has filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of

19

and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the

20

parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 25, 2014,

21

and rules as follows.

22

1. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the nature and number of persons employed

23

by plaintiffs’ law firm precludes a finding that the policy at issue is an employee benefit plan

24

as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See 29 C.F.R.

25

§ 2510.3-3(b)-(c) (providing “employee benefit plan” under ERISA “shall not include any

26

plan, fund, or program . . . under which no employees are participants covered under the

27

plan”; further providing “[a]n individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be

28

employees with respect to a trade or business . . . which is wholly owned by the individual

1

or by the individual and his or her spouse”); see also Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit

2

Sharing Plan v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1, 21 (2004) (holding “[p]lans that cover only sole owners

3

or partners and their spouses . . . fall outside . . . domain” of Title I of ERISA).

4

2. The Court finds unpersuasive defendants’ argument that plaintiffs can be

5

estopped from asserting the policy is other than an ERISA plan. Indeed, even if both

6

parties were in accord that the policy qualifies as an ERISA plan, such agreement would

7

not suffice to confer jurisdiction in the absence of facts sufficient to support a finding to that

8

effect, see Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934) (holding “lack of federal jurisdiction

9

cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of the parties”); to the extent

10

defendants argue they relied to their detriment on the statements made in the application

11

for the subject policy, any such argument is more properly raised in state court as a

12

defense to plaintiffs’ claims.

13

3. In light of the arguably conflicting statements made in the application and the

14

questions raised by defendants as to the legal effect thereof, the Court finds an award of

15

attorney’s fees is not appropriate in this instance. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546

16

U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (noting, “absent unusual circumstances,” attorney's fees should not

17

be awarded where removing party has “an objectively reasonable basis for seeking

18

removal”).
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the reasons stated above:

21

1. Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby

22

REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San

23

Francisco.

24

2. Plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs is hereby DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated: July 22, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

27
28
2