Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-01041/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-01041-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chandler Therapy Clinic, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

CIGNA Healthcare of Arizona,

Defendant.

No. CV-20-01041-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

The complaint in this action, which was originally filed in state court, alleges that 

K.A., a patient of Dr. Chris Komarnisky of the Chander Therapy Clinic, has an insurance 

policy issued by CIGNA Healthcare of Arizona (“Cigna”) and that Cigna improperly failed 

to provide coverage for one of K.A.’s medical visits. (Doc. 1-1 at 4.) Cigna has now 

removed the action to federal court on the ground that, under ERISA, the state-law claim 

is considered a federal claim for purposes of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1.)

Even assuming this is true, the Court harbors concerns over its subject matter 

jurisdiction. Notably, K.A. isn’t one of the plaintiffs identified in the complaint. Instead, 

the two named plaintiffs are the Chandler Therapy Clinic and Dr. Komarnisky. It is unclear 

whether either of those parties has standing, which is “an essential and unchanging part of 

the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 

555, 560 (1992). Even assuming that Cigna failed to pay non-party K.A. the benefits that 

were owed to her under her insurance policy, it doesn’t necessarily follow (at least based 

Case 2:20-cv-01041-DWL Document 5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

on the allegations set forth in the complaint) that the Chandler Therapy Clinic or Dr. 

Komarnisky suffered an “injury in fact,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 —that is, that Cigna’s 

failure to pay injured them, rather than K.A. 

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” Article III 

jurisdiction.1 Id. at 561. Here, the burden falls on removing Defendant Cigna.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Cigna must, by June 16, 2020, (1) voluntarily remand this 

action, or (2) file a memorandum, not to exceed five pages, showing cause why this action 

should not be remanded for lack of Article III jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs’ lack of 

standing.

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to the Maricopa 

County Justice Courts, without further notice, if Cigna does not comply with this order.2

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020.

1

“Arizona’s Constitution has no counterpart ‘case or controversy’ requirement.” 

Dobson v. State ex rel., Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, 309 P.3d 1289, 1292 

(Ariz. 2013).

2 The Court further notes that, although individual persons may appear pro se, 

“corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an 

attorney.” D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Thus, to the extent Cigna is able to establish that the Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff Chandler Therapy Clinic will not be allowed to

appear in this action without an attorney and will be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:20-cv-01041-DWL Document 5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2