Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02408/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02408-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs.

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MEDICAL BENEFITS

ADMINISTRATORS OF MD, INC., a

Maryland corporation; and

CUSTOM RAIL EMPLOYER WELFARE

TRUST FUND,

NO. CIV. S-06-2408 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY, n/k/a

SIERRA NORTHERN RAILWAY; VANNA

M. WALKER; AMBER A. GILLES and

DAVID N. MAGAW,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 This matter is before the court on defendant Vanna M.

Walker’s (“Walker”) motion to dismiss Counts III and V (for fraud

and negligent misrepresentation, respectively) of plaintiffs’

first amended complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6).1 Only Counts I, III and V of the FAC are

asserted against Walker. (FAC [Docket #45], filed May 24, 2007.) 

Case 2:06-cv-02408-KJM-KJN Document 80 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 3
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 Alternatively, Walker alleges plaintiffs’ FAC fails to

allege sufficient facts to sustain a claim of fraud or negligent

misrepresentation against her. The court need not reach this

argument as it finds these state claims preempted.

3 At the time these defendants filed their motions,

Walker had not appeared in the action. (October 5 Order at 2 n.

1.)

2

Walker answered the FAC with respect to Count I for restitution

under ERISA Section 502(a)(3). (Answer, filed April 4, 2008

[Docket #77].) However, Walker moves, based on the court’s

October 5, 2007 Memorandum and Order (“October 5 Order”), to

dismiss Counts III and V on the ground these state law claims are

preempted by ERISA.2

 In the October 5 Order, the court granted

in part and denied in part co-defendants Sierra Railroad Company

(“Sierra”), David N. Magaw (“Magaw”) and Amber A. Gilles’

(“Gilles”) motions to dismiss the FAC.3 (Docket #63.) The court

granted the motions as to plaintiffs’ state law claims (including

Counts III and V), finding those claims preempted by ERISA

Section 514(a), but denied the motions as to plaintiffs’ ERISA

Section 502(a)(3) claim, finding this claim sustainable as a

claim for equitable restitution. (October 5 Order at 7-15.)

Specifically, with respect to plaintiffs’ state law claims,

the court found as follows:

[E]ach of plaintiffs’ state law claims relate to the

[subject ERISA] Plan and are therefore preempted. 

Plaintiffs’ state law claims rest on the foundation that

defendants misrepresented facts to plaintiffs or that 

Walker was ineligible to enroll in the Plan. Each claim

requires interpretation of the Plan’s eligibility

requirements in order to resolve the issues at stake,

regardless of any alleged misrepresentation. That is, if

Walker met the eligibility requirements, plaintiffs would

have no claim. Thus, each state law cause of action is

preempted by ERISA [S]ection 514(a).

Case 2:06-cv-02408-KJM-KJN Document 80 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 3
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 Defendants Magaw and Gilles were dismissed from the

action pursuant to the October 5 Order, as only state law claims

were asserted against them.

3

(Id. at 11:11-20.) Walker’s instant motion raises the same

essential arguments in favor of preemption as raised by Sierra,

Magaw and Gilles. Thus, for the same reasons as set forth in the

court’s October 5 Order (see id. at 7-11), Walker’s motion to

dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Counts III and V of the FAC, asserted

against Walker, are dismissed as preempted by ERISA. Thus, this

action proceeds against defendants Sierra and Walker on Count I

of the FAC only.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2008.

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02408-KJM-KJN Document 80 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 3