Nestripke v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-granting 5 Motion to Dismiss. The court denies Ms. Nestripke's Motion to Remand 10 . The court dismisses Ms. Nestripke's cause of action and grants leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 3/17/2015. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CHRISTY NESTRIPKE,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:14-cv-685-RJS
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Judge Robert J. Shelby
This is a dispute over a life-insurance policy. Plaintiff Christy Nestripke alleges that
Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company wrongfully denied benefits of an insurance policy
taken out on the life of Theron Nestripke. Ms. Nestripke made multiple claims on the policy and
Aetna denied each one. Ms. Nestripke then sued Aetna in Utah state court, alleging breach of
contract and bad faith. Aetna removed the case to this court and moved to dismiss. Ms.
Nestripke then moved to remand the case to state court. For the reasons stated below, the court
denies Ms. Nestripke’s Motion to Remand and grants Aetna’s Motion to Dismiss.
I. Motion to Remand1
Generally, “[o]nly state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court
may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”2 If there is no diversity of citizenship, there
must be a federal question.3 The well-pleaded-complaint rule dictates that a federal question
1
Ms. Nestripke titled her motion as an objection to a notice of removal. (Dkt. 10.) Because she has requested
relief, the court construes it as a motion to remand.
2
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)).
3
Caterpillar, Inc. at 392.
1
only exists when properly pleaded in a complaint. An exception to this rule is complete
preemption, where a federal statutory cause of action “is so powerful as to displace any state
cause of action.”4 Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA provides a cause of action for a plan
participant or beneficiary of an ERISA-governed plan “to recover benefits due to him under the
terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future
benefits under the terms of the plan.”5 The Supreme Court has recognized that Section
502(a)(1)(B) completely preempts state-law claims by manifesting sufficient congressional intent
to recharacterize them as federal claims subject to removal.6 Complete preemption applies to
Section 502(a)(1)(B) claims “if an individual, at some point in time, could have brought his
claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and where there is no other independent legal duty that is
implicated by a defendant’s actions.”7
ERISA governs the life-insurance policy at issue here. Further, Ms. Nestripke’s claims
fall under Section 502(a)(1)(B): she is seeking to enforce her rights and recover benefits.
Although state and federal courts share concurrent jurisdiction over Section 502(a)(1)(B)
claims,8 defendants can remove the claims to federal court.9 Here, Aetna has properly removed
the claims to this court and the state causes of action are completely preempted. Thus, the
Motion to Remand is denied and the court retains jurisdiction.
4
Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 23 (1983).
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
6
Felix v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 387 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65–66 (1987).
7
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004).
8
29 U.S.C. § 1132(e).
9
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar Inc. at 392; PAUL J. SCHNEIDER AND BRIAN M. PINHEIRO, ERISA: A
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE § 8.03[C]–[D] (4th ed. 2014).
5
2
II. Motion to Dismiss
To be sure, complete preemption is a jurisdictional doctrine separate from ordinary
preemption. Complete preemption allows defendants to remove cases to federal court; ordinary
preemption is a federal defense to a plaintiff’s substantive claims.10 Section 514 contains an
express ordinary preemption clause that states that ERISA “shall supersede any and all State
laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” covered by the
statute. This clause is “clearly expansive”11 and establishes that a state law relates to an ERISA
plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.”12
Ms. Nestripke’s breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims relate to the ERISA-governed
plans. She is attempting to recover plan benefits and makes allegations regarding policy
interpretations and benefit denials. The Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit have held that ERISA
preempts similar claims.13 The court therefore finds that ERISA preempts Ms. Nestripke’s
claims and dismisses them.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the court DENIES Ms. Nestripke’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 10)
and GRANTS Aetna’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5). The court DISMISSES Ms. Nestripke’s
causes of action and grants leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days.
10
Felix, 387 F.3d at 1155.
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 146 (2001).
12
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983).
13
See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 62–63 (1987) (holding ERISA preempts common-law
tort and contract claims); Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 56–57 (1987) (same); Kidneigh v. UNUM Life
Ins. Co of Am., 345 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding ERISA preempts Colorado bad-faith cause of
action); Cannon v. Group Health Service of Oklahoma, Inc., 77 F.3d 1270, 1273–74 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding
ERISA preempts common-law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits); Kelso
v. General American Life Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 388, 389-91 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding ERISA preempts common-law
breach of contract action); Kelley v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 882 F.2d 453, 456 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding ERISA
preempts Colorado bad-faith cause of action).
11
3
SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
4
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?