Alameda County Medical Center v. Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California
Filing
23
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [re 12 MOTION to Remand and MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Alameda County Medical Center]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 9/12/2018. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER,
a department of the County of Alameda, a
political subdivision of the State of California,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 18-03565 WHA
v.
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, a voluntary employees benefit
association pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(9),
and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
/
18
19
20
INTRODUCTION
In this breach-of-contract dispute, plaintiff moves to remand this action to state court.
21
Defendants oppose this motion, asserting that plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of an implied
22
contract and quantum meruit are completely preempted by ERISA, and thus, removal was
23
proper. For the reasons herein, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
24
25
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Alameda County Medical Center is a hospital and medical provider. Defendants
26
Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California are a self-funded employee
27
benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) of 1974,
28
29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2).
1
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that between 2016 and 2017, plaintiff provided medical
2
services, supplies, and/or medical equipment to patients who were enrolled in defendants’
3
employee benefit plan (First Amd. Compl. ¶ 7). Patients were treated in plaintiff’s emergency
4
room. Once a patient was stabilized and admitted to the hospital, plaintiff then contacted
5
defendants and their agent, Anthem Blue Cross, to verify each patient’s eligibility for benefits
6
and obtain authorization for medical services. Defendants admit to being contacted and
7
verifying eligibility (Dkt. No. 14 at 3). Plaintiff timely billed defendants and received partial
8
payment for services rendered. Plaintiff now seeks damages in the amount of $388,684.26,
9
exclusive of interest, for the remaining balance due (First Amd. Compl. ¶ 15).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
In April 2018, plaintiff filed an action for breach of implied-in-fact contract and
11
quantum meruit against defendants in Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiff filed its first
12
amended complaint in May 2018. Defendants removed this matter to federal court based on
13
federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1441(a). A claim for relief arises under
14
federal law only when plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.
15
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 62 (1987). Defendants claim that
16
plaintiff’s claim was an artfully pleaded state law suit to recover benefits under an ERISA plan,
17
thus it falls within an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule wherein state law causes of
18
action are “completely preempted” under ERISA Section 502(a). This order disagrees.
19
Plaintiff now moves to remand this action to state court, arguing that it alleges only
20
state law claims in its complaint and that these claims are not completely preempted under
21
ERISA. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to remand and argue that plaintiff’s claims are
22
“completely preempted” by Section 502(a) of ERISA because: (1) plaintiff could have brought
23
this action as an assignee of the patients’ benefits and (2) no independent legal duty is implicated
24
by defendants’ actions. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004).
25
This order considers whether Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA completely preempts a
26
state law action for breach of an implied contract and quantum meruit. If the action is
27
completely preempted, then removal was proper. Because plaintiff’s state law action could not
28
be brought as a participant or beneficiary under Section 502(a)(1)(B) and because plaintiff relies
2
1
on legal duties that are independent from duties under any benefit plan established under ERISA,
2
this order finds that this action is not completely preempted. It strains credulity to believe that
3
defendants would have blessed any and all charges that followed the telephone call to confirm
4
eligibility. Nevertheless, the pleading proceeds on this proposition, far-fetched as it may be.
5
Accordingly, removal from state court was improper and the case must be remanded, as now
6
explained.
7
ANALYSIS
8
1.
9
A state law claim may be subject to “complete preemption” or “conflict preemption”
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
MOTION TO REMAND.
under ERISA. The difference between the two is critical to the issue of removal.
11
If a state law claim is subject to complete preemption under the civil enforcement
12
provisions of ERISA Section 502(a), it may properly form the basis for removal under 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction
14
Company, 581 F.3d 941, 944–46 (9th Cir. 2009). If, however, only conflict preemption under
15
Section 514(a) of ERISA exists, this is merely a federal defense. Id. at 949; 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)
16
(the relevant provisions of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they . . .
17
relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title and not exempt
18
under section 1003(b)”). In other words, conflict preemption — without more — “does not
19
convert a state claim into an action arising under federal law,” and removal on this basis would
20
be improper. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 481 U.S. at 64; see also Marin General Hospital,
21
582 F.3d at 945.
22
As the party seeking removal based on federal-question jurisdiction, defendants must
23
show that the state law cause of action is completely preempted by §502(a). Specifically,
24
defendants must establish that plaintiff’s state law claims are encompassed in ERISA’s civil
25
enforcement scheme set forth in Section 502(a) of ERISA by showing that: (1) plaintiff,
26
“at some point in time, could have brought [the] claim under ERISA [Section 502(a)],” and
27
(2) “there is no other independent legal duty that is implicated by [the] defendant’s actions.”
28
3
1
Davila, 542 U.S. at 210. This two-prong test set forth under Davila is conjunctive, and a state
2
law cause of action is preempted by Section 502(a)(1)(B) only if both prongs are satisfied.
3
4
5
A.
Davila’s First Prong.
The first requirement for complete preemption is whether plaintiff’s claim could have
been brought under Section 502(a) of ERISA. Section 502(a) provides:
6
A civil action may be brought—
7
(1) by a participant or beneficiary—
8
(A) for the relief provided for in subsection (c) of this
section, or
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his
plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to
clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the
plan;
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).
Defendants argue that Davila’s first prong is satisfied because plaintiff could have
14
brought a claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B) as an assignee of the patients’ benefits (Dkt. No. 15
15
at 10). In Misic v. Building Service Employees Health, 789 F.2d 1374, 1378–79 (9th Cir. 1986),
16
our court of appeals examined whether an assignee of benefits had standing to bring suit under
17
ERISA. The court determined that ERISA allows a beneficiary’s right to reimbursement to be
18
assigned to the “person who provided the beneficiary with health care,” and a beneficiary’s
19
assignee has standing to assert the claims of his assignors. Misic, 789 F.2d at 1377–78.
20
Plaintiff argues that its claims for breach of an implied contract and quantum meruit are not
21
being brought as an assignee of a plan beneficiary to recover benefits under an ERISA plan.
22
Rather, plaintiff seeks to recover costs for services rendered under an independent state law
23
obligation created when defendants verified eligibility and authorized treatment.
24
Plaintiff’s claim for relief is most similar to the facts in Marin General Hospital.
25
There, the plaintiff phoned the defendant, the ERISA plan administrator, to verify a patient’s
26
eligibility and obtain authorization for treatment. The court held that the defendant’s obligation
27
to pay for the plaintiff’s services stemmed from the alleged oral contract that arose during the
28
4
1
initial phone conversation and was not based on any assignment from the patient of his rights
2
under his ERISA plan. Marin General Hospital, 582 F.3d at 943.
Here, defendants argue that to be paid in the first place, plaintiffs had to be assigned the
4
patients’ rights to benefits. They contend that absent the assignments, plaintiff would not have
5
received any payment at all (Dkt. No. 15 at 10). Neither party disputes that plaintiff received
6
partial payments for services rendered. The dispute is not over the right to payment under the
7
plan, which could depend on the patients’ assignments to plaintiff. Rather, the dispute is over
8
the remaining balance that has not been paid. Payment of this balance depends on the implied
9
contract established when plaintiff called to verify patient eligibility and defendants and their
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
agents authorized treatment. Additionally, mere assignment of benefits to plaintiffs does not
11
prevent them from bringing a separate action based on a different legal obligation.
12
Marin General Hospital, Id. at 948.
13
Judge Thelton Henderson has recognized that an enrollee’s assignment of its right
14
to payment to a provider is “of no consequence” when it is the amount of the payment being
15
disputed and not the right to payment. John Muir Health v. Cement Masons Health & Welfare
16
Trust Fund, 69 F.Supp.3d 1010, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (emphasis added). In Cement Masons,
17
the plaintiff’s phone call seeking authorization to treat the defendant’s enrollee constituted an
18
“express or implied request for such medical services.” The plaintiff’s claim for quantum
19
meruit, thus arose when the plaintiff provided said services and the defendant refused to provide
20
payment. Id. at 1015.
21
Here, the facts are similar. Plaintiff relied on the phone authorization as an implied
22
contract and provided the necessary medical services. Defendants reimbursed plaintiff for the
23
amounts covered under the ERISA plan, and now, plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the balance.
24
Consequently, plaintiff’s action could not have been brought by an enrollee, because no enrollee
25
was a party to the implied contract between plaintiff and defendant.
26
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s state law claims based on its alleged oral contract
27
with defendant were not, and could not have been brought under Section 502(a)(1)(B).
28
Thus, Davila’s first prong is not satisfied.
5
1
2
B.
Davila’s Second Prong.
Defendants must also show that “there is no other independent legal duty that is
3
implicated by the defendant[s’] actions.” Davila, 542 U.S. at 210. In other words, this order
4
must determine whether plaintiff’s claims for breach of an implied-in-fact contract and quantum
5
meruit “rely on a legal duty that arises independently of ERISA” that “would exist whether or
6
not an ERISA plan existed.” Marin General Hospital, 582 F.3d at 946. If such an independent
7
legal duty exists outside of the ERISA plan, then a claim based under that duty is not completely
8
preempted under Section 502(a)(1)(B).
9
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claims do not involve an independent duty because,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
absent the health plan, plaintiff would have no claim at all (Dkt. No. 15 at 11). A recent decision
11
from our court of appeals focuses the inquiry on the “origin of the duty, not its relationship with
12
health plans.” Hansen v. Group Health Coop., No. 16-35684, 2018 WL 4201162, at *5 (9th Cir.
13
Sept. 4, 2018) (holding that mental health providers’ claims against a health plan were not
14
completely preempted by ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), reversing the district court’s exercise of
15
subject-matter jurisdiction and remanding to state court). Here, plaintiff asserts state law claims
16
arising out of an alleged oral contract for the reasonable value of their services. This duty exists
17
independently from the right to payment under an ERISA plan.
18
Defendants argue that absent the ERISA plan, plaintiff would have no claim against them
19
(Dkt. No. 15 at 11). They attempt to distinguish Marin General Hospital, by noting that there,
20
the defendant agreed to pay ninety percent of the plaintiff’s claims. In the instant case,
21
defendants made no such specific promise. While defendants correctly state that plaintiff’s
22
complaint makes no mention that defendants agreed to pay a certain percentage of plaintiff’s
23
charges, here, plaintiff’s state law claims are not based on an obligation under an ERISA plan.
24
The duty to pay these charges would exist whether or not the ERISA plan existed.
25
Marin General Hospital, 581 F.3d at 950.
26
Similarly, in John Muir Health v. Windsor Capital Group, Inc., No. 17-cv-05911-JST,
27
2017 WL 5991862, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017), Judge Jon Tigar held that the plaintiff’s state
28
law claim for quantum meruit was not preempted because it rested on an obligation independent
6
1
from an ERISA plan. In that case, as in this one, the obligation to pay stemmed from an implied
2
contract arising out of the defendant’s “words and/or conduct.” Id. at *1. The plaintiff did not
3
allege that a contract existed. The defendant’s liability “flows not from the ERISA plan but from
4
an independent legal relationship; namely, an implied-in-law contract between a medical
5
provider and insurers.” Id. at 2 (quoting Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue
6
Shield, No. CV 10-06927 DPP (JEMx), 2011 WL 3756052, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011).
7
For these reasons, Davila’s second prong is not satisfied.
8
2.
9
This order grants plaintiff’s motion to remand, thus plaintiff’s motion to strike the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
MOTION TO STRIKE.
declarations of Todd C. Norris and Nickolas King is DENIED AS MOOT.
11
CONCLUSION
12
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. Since the motion
13
to remand has been granted, plaintiff’s motion to strike the declarations of Todd C. Norris and
14
Nickolas King is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall remand this action to the Superior Court of
15
California, County of Alameda.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: September 12, 2018.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?