Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04088/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04088-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYLYE HUGHES,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-4088 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING REMAND

IN PART AND DENYING REMAND

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, IN PART

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On November 30, 2007, the court ordered further briefing in connection with

plaintiff’s motion to remand the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Specifically, the court sought further briefing on the issue whether the group long term

disability plan submitted into evidence by defendants is in fact governed by ERISA, such

that ERISA preemption applies to plaintiff’s state law claims. Having now duly considered

defendants’ supplemental brief in opposition to the motion for remand, as well as plaintiff’s

supplemental brief in support of the motion, and for good cause shown, the court hereby

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand in part, and DENIES it in part.

First, federal jurisdiction is warranted with respect to all claims premised upon the

denial of benefits under the New York Life Group Long Term Disability Plan (“Group LTD

Plan”). Significantly, plaintiff now concedes that at least some of his claims are brought

pursuant to this plan and that the plan is subject to ERISA, such that the exercise of federal

jurisdiction is warranted. See Pl’s. Supp. Br. at 2:2-4 (“[p]laintiff does not presently contest

that this policy is subject to ERISA and that federal jurisdiction applies to the dispute arising

under” it). This concession, in addition to the showing made by defendants in their original

and supplemental opposition briefs, compel the court’s conclusion that (1) ERISA governs

Case 4:07-cv-04088-PJH Document 44 Filed 02/06/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the Group LTD Plan in question; and (2) ERISA furthermore preempts plaintiff’s first,

second, third, and fourth causes of action, since each of these claims depends in part on,

and relates to, the Group LTD Plan. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(federal courts have

concurrent jurisdiction over individual claims for benefits “under the terms of [a] plan,” or to

enforce or clarify rights “under the terms of [a] plan” brought pursuant to Section

502(a)(1)(B)); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987)(state law claims that

“relate to an employee benefit plan” are preempted and may be removed); Tingey v. PixleyRichards West, Inc., 953 F.2d 1124, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 1992)(same); Ethridge v. Harbor

House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1404, (9th Cir. 1988)(for purposes of ERISA-preemption,

“[a] law ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a

connection with or reference to such a plan”). Accordingly, remand is DENIED with respect

to these claims. 

In so ruling, the court also rejects plaintiff’s request that the court partially remand

the first through fourth causes of action, to the extent they set forth claims based on

policies and contracts other than the Group LTD Plan. Plaintiff asserts that partial remand

of these claims is required, in view of the court’s prior finding that diversity of jurisdiction

does not exist as to all policies and contracts other than the Group LTD Plan. However,

although the court’s November 30 order expressly stated that the California Insurance

Commissioner had been properly named, therefore destroying diversity jurisdiction with

respect to these state law claims, the order also expressly noted that the court was unable

to conclusively decide whether plaintiff’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA, due

to lack of clarity regarding the group long term disability plan introduced by defendants. 

See November 30, 2007 Order at 2. Now that the parties have established ERISA

preemption with respect to the Group LTD Plan, the court concludes that federal question

jurisdiction is appropriate with respect to all claims premised on the denial of plaintiff’s

disability benefits. This is largely because plaintiff’s complaint is so poorly pled with respect

to the various different policies and contracts at issue, that it is impossible for the court to

Case 4:07-cv-04088-PJH Document 44 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

adequately determine what portion of plaintiff’s claims relates to the Group LTD Plan

exclusively, and which portion relates to any policies and contracts other than the Group

LTD Plan. Accordingly, the court assumes federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s first through

fourth causes of action – all of which allege a failure to pay disability benefits – in their

entirety, and remand is denied as to these claims. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(allowing

supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that “form part of the same case or

controversy”). This denial is without prejudice, however, to plaintiff’s ability to seek remand

of all claims that pertain to policies and contracts other than the Group LTD Plan, should it

become clear that such policies and contracts present distinct claims that can be

segregated from the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Group LTD Plan. 

Remand is GRANTED, however, with respect to plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and seventh

causes of action. Both parties acknowledge that remand as to plaintiff’s claims against the

Commissioner are warranted, in view of the court’s earlier finding regarding lack of diversity

jurisdiction with respect to those claims against the Commissioner. Furthermore, and

although the court does not reach the issue conclusively here, it is probable that Eleventh

Amendment immunity applies. 

For all the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04088-PJH Document 44 Filed 02/06/08 Page 3 of 3