Murphy v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
Filing
52
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 42 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
BERI MURPHY, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-03799-BLF
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
Defendants.
[Re: ECF 42]
13
14
On March 31, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
15
pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Mot., ECF 42. The Court has
16
considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument. For the reasons stated on the record and below,
17
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
18
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that each named Plaintiff prove that
20
there is a live controversy between him/her and the defendants. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
21
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778–
22
79 (9th Cir. 2000). To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must
23
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
24
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
25
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
26
27
28
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Defendants
Defendants argue—and Plaintiffs concede—that the majority of the named Defendants are
1
not proper defendants in this case. See Mot. at 1, 8-9; Opp. at 12. In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff
2
may press an ERISA claim “against the plan as an entity and against the fiduciary of the plan.”
3
Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Arizona, Inc., 770 F. 3d 1282, 1297-
4
98 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5
Plaintiffs Murphy, Favichia, and Amendt allege that their health benefit plans were
provided by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company (“UHIC”), Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra
7
Region Self-Funded Health Plan, and Sutter VNA & Hospice Self-Funded Health Plan,
8
respectively. First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 11, 13, 15. Plaintiffs also allege that Optum Rx is
9
the third-party pharmacy benefit claims administrator for each of these plans. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15, 18.
10
The parties agree that no other Defendants are proper defendants at this stage. Accordingly, the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the other Defendants without prejudice.
12
13
B. Plaintiff Murphy
Defendants argue that Ms. Murphy’s claims are moot because UHIC granted her coverage
14
for Harvoni in the course of its administrative process. Mot. at 7. As a result, they contend, she
15
fails the live controversy requirement of Rule 12(b)(1). Id. Ms. Murphy responds that she is a
16
proper plaintiff even if her claim is moot because her claim is capable of repetition, yet evades
17
review and because UHIC granted her claim only to make her claim “inherently transitory,” such
18
that it expired before the Court could consider class certification of it. Opp. at 7 (citing United
19
States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 399 (1980)).
20
For either of these exceptions to apply, “the named plaintiff [must] have a personal stake at
21
the outset of the lawsuit.” Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 398. To have such a stake for an ERISA claim, “a
22
claimant must avail . . . herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit in
23
federal court.” Diaz v. United Agr. Employee Welfare Ben. Plan and Trust, 50 F.3d 1478, 1483
24
(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Here, Ms. Murphy filed suit in the middle of her administrative
25
appeal—that is, before exhausting her administrative remedies. Thus, Ms. Murphy did not “have a
26
personal stake at the outset of the lawsuit” and her claim is now moot.
27
At the hearing, Ms. Murphy argued that UHIC improperly denied her request for urgent
28
review of her administrative appeal and that a claim for that misconduct was ripe at the time of
2
1
filing. But that denial does not form the basis of Ms. Murphy’s claims as pled, nor does it appear
2
to be reflective of the purported class’ allegations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
3
Motion to Dismiss Ms. Murphy’s claims with leave to amend.
4
5
C. Plaintiff Favichia
Defendants similarly argue that Ms. Favichia lacks standing to bring her claim because she
6
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. See Diaz, 50 F. 3d at 1483. Ms.
7
Favichia concedes that she filed a second request for treatment rather than appealing her initial
8
denial, but argues that she can plead around this deficiency. Opp. at 12-17. Accordingly, the Court
9
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Ms. Favichia’s claims with leave to amend.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
D. ERISA § 502(a)(3) Claims
Finally, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim, see 29 U.S.C. §
12
1132(a)(3), on the grounds that they could get adequate relief under their ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)
13
claim, see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Mot. at 10. Plaintiffs respond that the two claims are
14
distinguishable because their § 502(a)(3) claim seeks not only monetary relief for denial of past
15
benefits, but also class-wide injunctive and equitable relief. Opp. at 17.
16
In light of Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief—and Defendants’ withdrawal of their
17
argument that a change in policy since this lawsuit was filed has mooted the claim, see Reply at 7,
18
ECF 45—it is not clear at this stage of the lawsuit that benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) would
19
provide Plaintiffs a sufficient remedy for their § 502(a)(3) claim. See, e.g., Caplan v. CAN Short
20
Term Disability Plan, 479 F.Supp, 2d 1108, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Davis v. Bank of America
21
GroupBenefits Program, No. C10-5199, 2011 WL 1298860 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011).
22
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the § 502(a)(3) claim.
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
27
28
3
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?