NORTH JERSEY BRAIN & SPINE CENTER v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Remand SOMERSET COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, SOM-L248-16, filed by NORTH JERSEY BRAIN & SPINE CENTER, 19 Report and Recommendations ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 3/20/17. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 2:16-cv-01544 (WJM)

NORTH JERSEY BRAIN & SPINE
CENTER,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff, North Jersey Brain & Spine Center, filed this action in New Jersey
Superior Court to recover payment for medical services from Defendants AETNA,
asserting breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, interference with economic
advantage, and other state law claims. Defendants removed the action to this Court,
arguing that there was federal jurisdiction because the state law claims were completely
preempted by § 502(a) of ERISA. Plaintiff moved to remand. The motion to remand
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. On February 17, 2017, Judge
Falk filed a detailed, 13-page Report and Recommendation in which he found that this
action is “a straightforward breach of contract action pled independent of any claims that
potentially could exist under the [patients’] ERISA plans.” ECF No. 19 (“R&R”). The
parties were notified that they had fourteen (14) days to submit objections to the Report
and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2).

1

Defendants timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, making
substantially the same arguments that Judge Falk rejected when evaluating the motion to
remand. This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees in
all respects with Judge Falk’s reasoning. Specifically, the Court notes, as Judge Falk did,
that even if Plaintiff has standing to bring this action under § 502(a) of ERISA (which is
doubtful for at least some of the claims, given that no valid ERISA assignment has been
shown for four out of seven patients), “Plaintiff’s state law claim for breach of contract is
in no way based on any legal obligation under the ERISA plans,” i.e., an independent
legal duty supports Plaintiff’s claim. R&R at 13. See also Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local
464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 400 (3d Cir. 2004) (setting
forth the two-prong test for removal under § 502(a) of ERISA). For the reasons set forth
in detail in the Report and Recommendation, and for good cause appearing;
IT IS on this 20th day of March 2017, hereby,
ORDERED that Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation are
overruled; and it is further
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark Falk
is adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of New
Jersey.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
cc:

The Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.
2