Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN HACKERT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1248 KJM CKD PS 

ORDER 

This matter was referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge under 

Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations on plaintiff John Hackert’s motions to dismiss and remand, recommending 

both motions be denied. ECF No. 14. The findings and recommendations were served on the 

parties and gave notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. 

Hackert filed timely objections. See Objections, ECF No. 15. He argues the 

Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined he sought reimbursement from defendant Cigna Health 

and Life Insurance Company as an assignee of rights under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act (ERISA). Id. at 4–7. He also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that this 

court has subject matter jurisdiction over a certain subset of his claims. Id. at 7. Cigna responded 

to Hackert’s objections, arguing the Magistrate Judge correctly found Hackert sought 

Case 2:15-cv-01248-KJM-CKD Document 21 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

reimbursement as an assignee and arguing this court has supplemental jurisdiction over any statelaw claims in the complaint. Response, ECF No. 16. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds 

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 

court writes separately here only to address Hackert’s objections. 

I. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS 

A defendant may remove an action originally filed in state court if the federal 

court would have original subject matter jurisdiction over that action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; MooreThomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2009). Federal courts have 

original subject matter jurisdiction over any action arising under the laws of the United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 1331; Moore-Thomas, 553 F.3d at 1243. “[I]f a federal cause of action completely 

preempts a state cause of action any complaint that comes within the scope of the federal cause of 

action necessarily ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. 

Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). As relevant to this case, ERISA 

completely preempts a plaintiff’s state-law claims if both (1) at some point in time, he could have 

brought that claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), and (2) the 

defendant’s actions implicate no other independent legal duty. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 

U.S. 200, 210 (2004); Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 946 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

A plaintiff may contest removal in a motion to remand. Moore-Thomas, 553 F.3d 

at 1244. In response to such a motion, the defendant bears the burden to show removal was 

proper. Id. The court may consider evidence extrinsic to the pleadings if necessary to resolve 

relevant factual disputes concerning jurisdiction. See, e.g., Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n. 4 

(1947) (“[W]hen a question of the District Court’s jurisdiction is raised . . . the court may inquire 

. . . into the facts as they exist); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(allowing consideration of “summary-judgment-type evidence”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01248-KJM-CKD Document 21 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

II. DISCUSSION 

 A. Assignment of Rights 

A healthcare provider has standing to bring an ERISA action against an insurance 

fund, and ERISA completely preempts a related state law claim, when the provider sues as the 

assignee of a patient’s rights to benefits under an ERISA plan. See, e.g., Hobbs v. Blue Cross 

Blue Shield of Ala., 276 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2001); The Meadows v. Employers Health 

Ins., 47 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995). Given this authority, the Magistrate Judge found 

removal was proper because Hackert had sought reimbursement for medical services provided to 

his patients as their assignee. Findings & Recommendations at 2. The Magistrate Judge relied on 

the declaration of Cheri Baron, a Cigna claims service analyst, who averred that Hackert had 

submitted claims for benefits under an assignment of rights. See Baron Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 12-1; 

id. Ex. A, at 9.1

As noted above, Hackert objects to this finding and argues he is not an assignee of 

any patient’s rights. See Objections at 4. He cites the declaration he submitted in support of the 

motion to remand, averring he is “not a fiduciary, beneficiary, or assignee of any beneficiary of 

any CIGNA patient vis-à-vis ERISA.” Hackert Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 6. He explains he has no 

“assignment of benefits on file for any CIGNA patient, written or otherwise.” Id. ¶ 4. Perhaps in 

anticipation of the very response Cigna gave in its opposition to his motion, he explains further: 

“Although the claim submission protocols of my former or current billing services may 

potentially suggest that there was assignment of benefits, no actual assignment of benefits exists 

for any of the claims I have submitted to CIGNA through the agency of a billing service, or 

otherwise.” Id. ¶ 6. 

On the other hand, Hackert also acknowledges he could not bring a claim against 

Cigna here unless he had either negotiated an agreement to do so or filed a claim on his patients’ 

behalf. Objections at 6. He explains, “The claims in question were . . . filed on behalf of the 

patients to whom the benefits were owed” because “the average patient, if billed directly by the 

 1

 To avoid confusion, the pages cited are those printed on the top right corner by the 

CM/ECF system. 

Case 2:15-cv-01248-KJM-CKD Document 21 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

provider, would most likely feel incapable of submitting a claim to an insurance entity like 

CIGNA.” Id.

In sum, the evidence shows Hackert submitted claims on his patients’ behalf, his 

billing system suggested his patients had assigned him their right to do so, and Cigna’s records 

show those claims were submitted under an assignment of rights. Hackert’s bare averment that 

he is not an assignee and has no assignment agreement “on file” does not counterbalance these 

facts. In light of this evidence, Cigna has carried its burden to show Hackert submitted claims as 

his patients’ assignee and would have standing to bring an ERISA action, and the removal was 

proper. In a similar case, another district court concluded similarly. See Spring E.R., LLC v. 

Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 09-2001, 2010 WL 598748, at *3–4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2010). 

 B. Supplemental Jurisdiction 

Hackert objects that the Magistrate Judge tacitly and improperly lumped together 

(1) the claims Cigna argues were preempted by ERISA and (2) other claims involving a Health 

Maintenance Organization (HMO), for which he claims an independent California statutory 

remedy exists. See Objections at 7. Assuming without deciding that the court would lack 

independent subject matter jurisdiction over these HMO-related claims, because all Hackert’s 

claims arise within the same factual circumstances, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original 

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are 

so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same 

case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). 

III. CONCLUSION 

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2015 are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for remand, ECF No. 6, is denied; and 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, ECF No. 7, is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01248-KJM-CKD Document 21 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 4