Regenold v. RELX Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Seeborg denying 22 Motion to Remand; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2022)

Case 3:22-cv-04419-RS Document 27 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
TODD REGENOLD,

10

Case No. 22-cv-04419-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND AND GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12
RELX INC.,

13

Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff Todd Regenold was employed by defendant RELX, Inc., through its subsidiary

16
17

Lex Machina, as VP of Sales and Customer Success for over five years. In March of 2022,

18

Regenold was advised his position was to be eliminated, effective one month later. Regenold was

19

provided a severance notification letter stating he would receive 26 weeks of severance

20

($167,683.50), to be paid in bi-weekly installments through September of 2022, and six months of

21

paid membership in an executive outplacement service.1
Shortly before his final day, however, Regenold was informed he was under investigation

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

RELX requests judicial notice of the letter and provides a copy. Regenold does not dispute the
authenticity of the copy or otherwise object to its consideration in connection with the pending
motions. The letter states the severance benefits were being offered pursuant to the RELX US
Severance Plan (the “Plan”). The letter cautioned: “Benefits under the Plan are provided in
accordance with the terms of the Plan. If anything contained in this letter conflicts with the terms
of the Plan, the terms of the Plan will govern.” RELX also provides a copy of the Plan, to which
Regenold similarly does not object.

Case 3:22-cv-04419-RS Document 27 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3

1

for alleged misconduct. He complied with RELX’s requests for an interview and cooperated with

2

the investigation. Shortly thereafter, RELX informed Regenold the investigation had concluded

3

and that he would not be receiving the previously promised severance package because he was not

4

an “employee in good standing.”

5
6

related claims under state law. RELX removed the action to this court, alleging the state law

7

claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29

8

U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), because the severance benefits were offered—and then

9

withheld—pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Regenold filed this action in San Mateo Superior court advancing breach of contract and

RELX now moves to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the claims, presently pleaded

11

under state law, are completely preempted by ERISA, and that if the complaint is instead

12

construed as a claim under ERISA for benefits under the Plan, it fails because Regenold has not

13

exhausted his administrative remedies. Contending that the complaint does not implicate ERISA,

14

Regenold opposes the motion to dismiss and moves for remand to state court. Pursuant to Civil

15

Local Rule 7-1(b), the motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the

16

previously vacated hearing will not be reset.

17

Although the complaint made no mention of the Plan, Regenold does not dispute that the

18

severance benefits offer was made pursuant to the Plan. Likewise, Regenold effectively concedes

19

that if the Plan is governed by ERISA, then his motion to remand fails and RELX’s motion to

20

dismiss is properly granted. Regenold insists, though, the benefits promised him did not require an

21

“ongoing administrative scheme” to administer, and that therefore the Plan is not subject to

22

ERISA.

23

Regenold correctly states the law: “a relatively simple test has emerged to determine

24

whether a plan is covered by ERISA: does the benefit package implicate an ongoing

25

administrative scheme?” Delaye v. Agripac, Inc., 39 F.3d 235, 237 (9th Cir. 1994). To argue that

26

administering the benefit package described in his termination letter did not require sufficient

27

ongoing and particularized discretionary analysis to invoke ERISA, however, Regenold ignores

28

CASE NO.

2

22-cv-04419-RS

Case 3:22-cv-04419-RS Document 27 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3

1
2

On its face, the Plan is “is intended to be an unfunded “employee welfare benefit plan”

3

within the meaning of Section 3(1) of ERISA and a severance pay plan under the DOL

4

Regulations Section 2510.3-2(b).” Plan § 7. Claims are determined by a Committee “consisting of

5

at least three persons appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the

6

Company.” Plan § 3.) The Plan affords the Committee complete discretion over claims decisions.

7

Id. Section 5 of the Plan sets out a detailed claims procedure for persons who believe they have

8

been wrongly denied a benefit to file a written claim to challenge that denial. If a claim is denied,

9

the claims procedure requires the claimant to be notified of the “right to bring a civil action under

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

the context of the Plan itself.

Section 502(a) of [ERISA].” Id.
The Plan has been in effect since 2014, and applies to hundreds of employees of RELX

12

and its affiliates. While Regenold’s own termination was a one-time event involving only one

13

person, the Plan itself is plainly an ongoing administrative scheme by which employee severance

14

benefits are provided in certain circumstances. The question is not close—ERISA governs.

15

Accordingly, the motion to remand must be denied, and the motion to dismiss granted. As

16

RELX argues, and Regenold does not dispute, leave to amend is not appropriate because ERISA

17

preemption cannot be avoided by alleging additional facts, and Regenold cannot truthfully plead

18

exhaustion of his administrative remedies at this juncture. The dismissal, however, is without

19

prejudice to any right Regenold may have to bring a new action upon exhausting administrative

20

remedies.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: November 21, 2022
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

28

CASE NO.

3

22-cv-04419-RS