Eichenberger v. Cardinal Health, Inc.
Filing
33
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; terminating 30 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/27/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Raymond L. Eichenberger,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-113
Plaintiff,
Judge Graham
Cardinal Health, Inc.,
Defendant.
Opinion and Order
Plaintiff Raymond L. Eichenberger, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that
defendant Cardinal Health, Inc. wrongfully terminated the dependent health insurance coverage he
received as the spouse of Maxine Irvin, a Cardinal employee. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory
relief stating that defendant has an obligation under federal and state law to provide him with health
insurance coverage. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant committed violations of federal and state
law in terminating his coverage, and he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
This matter is before the court on defendant’s unopposed motion for judgment on the
pleadings. “After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move
for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The standard applied to motions for
judgment on the pleadings is the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). See Hindel v. Husted, 875 F.3d 344, 346 (6th Cir. 2017). “For purposes of a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing
party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless
clearly entitled to judgment.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 582 (6th Cir.
2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In order to withstand the motion, the
“factual allegations in the complaint need to be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what
claims are alleged, and the plaintiff must plead ‘sufficient factual matter’ to render the legal claim
plausible, i.e., more than merely possible.” Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718,
722 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
1
Defendant correctly notes that this suit concerns coverage under a benefit plan offered
through an employer for the purpose of providing medical and related benefits to employee
participants and their beneficiaries. See Compl., ¶ 4. Claims related to the Plan are governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a).
In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that his entitlement to benefits is, in part, based upon state
law and that defendant has committed violations of state law by denying him Plan benefits.
Although the complaint fails to identify which state law or laws are implicated, the court finds in any
event that ERISA preempts plaintiff’s state law claims. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (“[T]he provisions
of this subchapter and subchapter III shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now
or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title and not
exempt under section 1003(b) of this title.”); Cromwell v. Equicor–Equitable HCA Corp., 944 F.2d
1272, 1275-76 (6th Cir. 1991).
The court further finds that the complaint’s demands for compensatory and punitive
damages and for a jury trial must be dismissed.
It is well-settled that “extracontractual
compensatory and punitive damages are not available under ERISA” and that that “there is no right
to a jury trial on ERISA claims for recovery of benefits.” Vargas v. Child Dev. Council of Franklin
Cnty., Inc., 269 F.Supp.2d 954, 956-57 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing cases).
Finally, defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s ERISA claim on the ground that the
complaint names the wrong defendant. Plaintiff has sued Cardinal Health, Inc., the Plan Sponsor,
rather than the Plan itself. See Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 522
(6th Cir. 2010) (the plan administrator is the proper defendant in an ERISA action concerning
benefits).
In response, plaintiff has moved to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice to
refiling. Plaintiff states that certain issues are currently being resolved in his state court divorce
proceeding with Maxine Irvin that will influence whether he wishes to proceed with this litigation.
Defendant argues that any grant of a dismissal without prejudice should be conditioned
upon reasonable terms. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA
Music Pub., Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953-54 (6th Cir. 2009) (“A Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal may be
conditioned on whatever terms the district court deems necessary to offset the prejudice the
defendant may suffer from a dismissal without prejudice.”).
The court agrees that a dismissal of the complaint should be conditioned on certain terms.
First, as set forth above, plaintiff’s state law claims and demands for damages and a jury trial are
2
dismissed with prejudice. Second, an ERISA claim for recovery of benefits is plaintiff’s sole claim
arising from the facts alleged in the complaint. As such, in a refiled action, the defendant (assuming
the proper defendant is named), may proceed immediately with filing the Administrative Record and
moving for judgment thereon.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 29) is granted as to
plaintiff’s state law claims and demands for damages and a jury trial. The court declines to rule on
the motion as it concerns whether the named defendant is a proper party to an ERISA claim.
Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims without prejudice is granted as to his ERISA
claim for benefits but denied as to the remainder of the claims in the complaint.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: March 27, 2018
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?