Pettit v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP et al
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Pltf Joseph A. Pettit's MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint 18 is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 10/5/2011.(ECO)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
(at Covington)
JOSEPH A. PETTIT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO., )
LP, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Civil Action No. 2: 11-067-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of the Plaintiff Joseph A. Pettit (“Pettit”)
for leave to file an amended complaint. [Record No. 18] Pettit seeks to amend his original
complaint to assert an additional cause of action and to add a new defendant, Aetna Life
Insurance Company (“Aetna”).
Defendants Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP
(“CPChem”) and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) oppose the motion on the
grounds that Pettit has not exhausted his administrative remedies with CPChem or Aetna
regarding this new claim.
As an employee of CPChem, Pettit participated in the company’s group long-term
disability insurance policy, administered by MetLife. He applied for short-term and long-term
disability insurance benefits in January 2010, and MetLife denied those benefits in November
2010. Pettit brought suit against CPChem and MetLife on April 11, 2011, seeking judicial
-1-
review under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of the denial of his
disability insurance benefits. [Record No. 1]
Pettit also participated in CPChem’s group health insurance policy, administered by
Aetna. After his employment with CPChem ended, Pettit continued his employee benefits
coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), which gives
employees who lose their employer-provided health benefits the right to continue their coverage
for limited periods. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980B(f). After paying to continue his employee benefits
for several months, Pettit was informed in June 2011 that his benefit coverage had been
canceled. [Record No. 18-4] He now seeks to amend his complaint to include a claim against
Aetna and CPChem for denying his health insurance benefits in violation of COBRA. [Record
No. 18-2, p. 6]
CPChem and MetLife contend that Pettit has not exhausted his administrative remedies
regarding this new claim because he did not bring an administrative appeal, as provided in the
letter denying his health care benefits. [Record No. 18-4, p. 4] Under Rule of Federal Civil
Procedure 15, leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, the Court need not grant a motion for leave to amend a complaint
under Rule 15 if the amendment would be futile. Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 817
(6th Cir. 2005). Futility exists if “the proposed amendment would not permit the complaint to
survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. Before a plaintiff may assert an ERISA claim, he must first
exhaust his administrative remedies. Miller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 979, 986 (6th Cir.
1991).
-2-
In this case, Pettit’s claim against Aetna would not withstand a motion to dismiss for
failure to exhaust. Pettit did allege in his proposed amended complaint that he “has exhausted
all his administrative remedies.” [Record No. 18-2, p. 6] However, when deciding a motion to
dismiss, the Court is not required to “accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual
inferences.” Campbell v. PMI Food Equip. Grp., Inc., 509 F.3d 776, 781 (6th Cir. 2007)
(emphasis added). Pettit has not presented any evidence to support his contention that he
exhausted his administrative remedies with Aetna, and the defendants point out that “given the
procedure and time frame for such appeals and the dates of the documents plaintiff attaches to
his Motion, it would be unlikely and impracticable that the appeal process would be already
completed.” [Record No. 21, p. 3] The reasonable inference, therefore, is that Pettit has not
received a final adverse determination of his claim on appeal. As a result, his amended
complaint would not withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust.
Rather than grant Pettit’s current motion and then dismiss the claims after the defendants
bring a motion to dismiss, the Court will deny his motion to amend. Pettit may renew his motion
if or when his administrative appeal results in an adverse determination of his claim.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Joseph A. Pettit’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint [Record No. 18] is DENIED, without prejudice.
This 5th day of October, 2011.
-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?