Memorial Hermann Health System v. Coastal Drilling Company, LLC Employee Benefit Trust et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENIED 7 MOTION to Remand (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH
SYSTEM,
Plaintiff,
v.
COASTAL DRILLING COMPANY,
LLC EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST,
et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-1280

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case concerning payment under an employee benefit plan is before the
Court on Plaintiff Memorial Hermann Health System’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to
Remand [Doc. # 7]. Defendants Coastal Drilling Company, LLC Employee Benefit
Trust and Coast Drilling (“Defendants”) filed a Response [Doc. # 8]. The Motion is
ripe for consideration. The Court has carefully reviewed the record, the parties’
arguments, and the applicable law, and concludes the Motion to Remand should be
denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Original Petition in the 281st Judicial

District Court of Harris County, Texas. See Original Petition [Exh. # 2 to Doc. # 1],
at 3-10. Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 2, 2013, asserting that
C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesFFF692\1280Remand.wpd

the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal [Doc. # 1], at 1, 4.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Congress allows for removal of a case from state court to federal court when a

plaintiff’s complaint alleges a claim “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Generally, “[t]he presence
or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint
rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc.
v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citation omitted). Under the well-pleaded
complaint rule, the plaintiff is “the master of the claim” and may avoid federal
jurisdiction by exclusively relying on state law, even where a federal claim is also
available. Id. “The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the case should be remanded because it asserts an

independent state law claim for breach of contract that is not preempted by section
502(a) or section 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).
However, Plaintiff raises two claims in its Original Petition, the state law breach of

C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesFFF692\1280Remand.wpd

2

contract claim and a claim under section 1002(1) of ERISA. ERISA is a federal
statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; Original Petition, at 8 (referring to Plaintiff’s
second claim as a “federal claim”). Because Plaintiff raises a claim arising under a
federal statute, a federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiff’s Original
Petition.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 417
(5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. # 11] is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 25th day of July, 2013.

1

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law
breach of contract claim because it forms “part of the same case or controversy”
as Plaintiff’s ERISA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesFFF692\1280Remand.wpd

3