Morris v. Comcast of Marin et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
PAUL MORRIS,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 11-3712 PJH

8
v.
9
COMCAST OF MARIN and LIBERTY
MUTUAL,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Defendants’ amended motion to dismiss the complaint came on for hearing before

14

this court on November 9, 2011. Plaintiff Paul Morris (“plaintiff”) appeared pro se.

15

Defendants Comcast of Marin (“Comcast”) and Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

16

(erroneously sued as “Liberty Mutual”)(“Liberty Life”)(collectively “defendants”), appeared

17

through their counsel, Alexis Kent. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

18

considered both parties’ oral arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

19

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss, for the reasons stated

20

at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

21

Defendants construe, and plaintiff admits, that plaintiff’s underlying state court small

22

claims complaint asserts two causes of action against defendants: common law breach of

23

contract and constructive fraud. See Petition for Removal, Exhibit 1 (“Complaint”); see also

24

Pl. Dismiss Opposition Br. at 2. Plaintiff’s claims are generally premised on the allegation

25

that defendants “fraudulently sold [plaintiff] long term disability insurance with no chance of

26

collection.” Complaint at p. 2. Defendants seek dismissal of both claims, on grounds that

27

ERISA § 514, 29 U.S.C. § 1144, preempts them.

28

Defendants are correct. ERISA preempts claims that "relate to" an employee benefit

1

plan as articulated by ERISA § 514(a). See 29 U.S.C. 1144(a)(ERISA § 514(a) expressly

2

preempts "state laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan."); see also

3

Abraham v. Norcal Waste Sys., Inc., 265 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the

4

insurance policy underlying plaintiff’s claims – which has been submitted by defendants in

5

support of their motion to dismiss and which may properly be considered as a document

6

referenced in plaintiff’s complaint – is part of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, as

7

maintained by defendant Comcast for the benefit of its employees. See Declaration of

8

Paula J. McGee ISO Mot. Dismiss, ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. A. Because plaintiff's causes of action for

9

breach of contract and constructive fraud – premised on allegations relating to the
defendants’ provision of long term disability benefits – would substantially affect an ERISA-

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

governed relationship, they therefore "relate to" to an "employment benefit plan" and as

12

such, are preempted under § 514(a).

13

Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff’s opposition can further be read to state that the

14

underlying complaint asserts an additional claim for breach of fiduciary duty under the

15

ERISA regulatory scheme, plaintiff has neither pled nor elucidated in his opposition

16

sufficient facts from which to state a legally cognizable ERISA claim.

17

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

18

The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to re-file a complaint properly alleging

19

violation of his rights pursuant to ERISA. As discussed at the hearing, however, if plaintiff

20

seeks to do so, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. As such, plaintiff is

21

granted a period of ninety days – until February 7, 2012 – in which to exhaust his

22

administrative remedies. Plaintiff shall have twenty-eight days thereafter – until March 6,

23

2012 – in which to file his amended complaint, if any.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: November 9, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2