Milby v. MCMC LLC

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 3/17/2016, GRANTING 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendant WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. cc: Counsel(RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
PLAINTIFF

SAMANTHA MILBY

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00814-CRS

MCMC LLC

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Samantha Milby brought this action in Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville,
Kentucky, against Defendant MCMC LLC (“MCMC”). MCMC removed the action to this
Court. MCMC now moves to dismiss Milby’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the
reasons below, the Court will grant MCMC’s motion.
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must
determine whether the complaint alleges “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556).
In this Court’s February 10, 2016 memorandum opinion and order the Court ruled that
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) completely preempts Milby’s state
law claims. ECF No. 13. Milby has only pleaded claims under Kentucky law and has not
1

amended her complaint. When ERISA completely preempts a state law claim and the party does
not amend the complaint, the Court construes the claim as an ERISA claim. Loffredo v. Daimler
AG, 500 F. App’x 491, 495 (6th Cir. 2012).
Milby correctly points out that she cannot assert an ERISA claim against MCMC. See
Pl.’s Resp. 1, ECF No. 14. The Court’s February 10, 2016 memorandum opinion and order said
that “Milby’s challenge to MCMC practitioners’ medical qualifications are subsumed within
Milby’s ERISA claim for wrongful denial of benefits.” 4. “[T]he proper defendant in an ERISA
action concerning benefits is the plan administrator.” Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of
Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 522 (6th Cir. 2010). MCMC is not the plan administrator. As MCMC is not
the proper Defendant in an ERISA action concerning benefits, Milby’s complaint fails to state a
claim to relief.
Notably, Milby already has a pending suit against the insurer for wrongful denial of
benefits. See Milby v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, Case No. 3:13-cv-00487-CRS,
(W.D. Ky. Apr. 30, 2015). This is the appropriate avenue for Milby’s sought relief.
The Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the Court GRANTS Defendant MCMC LLC’s motion to dismiss (DN 5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff Samantha Milby’s
complaint against Defendant MCMC LLC WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 17, 2016

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
2