Toohey v. Cigna Coporation et al

Filing 43

ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendation 37 . Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [19 and 23] are GRANTED and plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 16 is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 07/21/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (pvh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TONI L TOOHEY, individually, and as Personal Representative o f the Heirs and the Estate o f F R A N K R. TOOHEY, Deceased, Plaintiff, ORDER C i v i l No. 0 9 - 8 8 - S T

v.
CIGNA C O R P O R A T I O N , CIGNA GROUP I N S U R A N C E , LIFE I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y OF N O R T H A M E R I C A , T R U S T E E ( S ) OF T H E G R O U P INSURANCE T R U S T F O R EMPLOYERS IN T H E SERVICES INDUSTRY, WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, a n d W Y N D H A M RESPORD D E V E L O P M E N T CORPORATION, Defendants.

H A G G E R T Y , D i s t r i c t Judge: Magistrate Judge Stewart referred to this court a Findings and Recommendation [37] in t h i s matter. T h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e r e c o m m e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t L i f e I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y o f N o r t h America's (LINA) M o t i o n to Dismiss [23] b e granted and that defendants Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and Wyndham Resort Development Commission's Motion to Dismiss [19] b e granted. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n s , a n d d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d t i m e l y r e s p o n s e s . F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , t h i s c o u r t a d o p t s t h e F i n d i n g s and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n .

ORDER-l

STANDARDS

W h e n a p a r t y objects to a n y p o r t i o n o f a Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t must conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). T h e court m a y "accept, reject, o r m o d i f y , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , t h e f i n d i n g s o r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e b y t h e m a g i s t r a t e judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
DISCUSSION

P l a i n t i f f brings this action to recover sums allegedly due under insurance contracts issued b y U N A and purchased b y t h e deceased, Frank R. Toohey, and his employer. Plaintiff's First A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t a d v a n c e s e i g h t c l a i m s a g a i n s t defendants. T h e f i r s t s e v e n c l a i m s a r e s t a t e l a w claims. T h e e i g h t h c l a i m a l l e g e s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e E m p l o y e e R e t i r e m e n t I n c o m e S e c u r i t i e s Acts (ERISA), 29 U S C § 1001, e t seq. The Findings and Recommendation contains a factual summary outlining t h e history o f this marter, and the facts will not b e repeated here. T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o u n d t h a t t h e first s e v e n c l a i m s a r e p r e e m p t e d b y E R I S A because they relate to an employee benefit plan and fall within the scope o f ERISA's remedial framework and that they should b e dismissed for failure to state a claim u p o n which r e l i e f can b e granted. T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n C o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e e i g h t h c l a i m s h o u l d a l s o b e dismissed because i t fails to n a m e the proper plan administrator. Findings and Recommendation at 20. P l a i n t i f f o b j e c t s t o t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n and s u m m a r i l y r e i t e r a t e s arguments presented to t h e Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's filing invites this court to revisit all o f p l a i n t i f f s initial arguments. This court has conducted a de novo review o f the entire record and ORDER-2

has considered all arguments advanced b y plaintiff. This court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation adequately addressed p l a i n t i f f s arguments and that they do not merit additional analysis here. Plaintiff also argues that defendants' Motions to Dismiss should have been construed as motions for summary j u d g m e n t because facts and evidence were presented outside o f the pleadings. However, the Magistrate Judge already considered p l a i n t i f f s requests for discovery a n d concluded that additional d i s c o v e r y could n o t s a v e p l a i n t i f f s F i r s t A m e n d e d Complaint. Findings and Recommendation at 15-17. This court also notes that "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and w h o s e authenticity no party questions, b u t which are not physically attached to the pleadings, maybe considered i n ruling o n a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F . 3 d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y
Galbraith v. County o fSan ta Clara. 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). T h e consideration o f such

documents does n o t convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id. ( c i t a t i o n and q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . Lastly, p l a i n t i f f argues that the proper p l a n administrator was named as a defendant in the eighth claim for relief. However, t h e record establishes that the plan administrator is the W y n d h a m W o r l d w i d e Corporation Employee Benefits C o m m i t t e e ( W W C E B C ) and t h a t p l a i n t i f f failed to name W W C E B C in the eighth claim for relief. T h i s court's d e n o v o r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d c o m p e l s a d o p t i o n o f t h e F i n d i n g s a n d Recommendation i n its entirety. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted and p l a i n t i f f s First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to refile and assert proper claims against the proper parties. ORDER-3

CONCLUSION

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e c o u r t a d o p t s t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n [37]. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [19 and 23] are GRANTED and p l a i n t i f f s First Amended Complaint [16] is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. D A T E D t h i s ' ; ? I d a y o f July, 2 0 0 9 .

{i&L/a~iif~ H~ ~
Ancer L. United S t a t e s District J u d g e

ORDER-4