Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-07-00262 RMW

SPT

E-filed on: 8/10/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REHAN SHEIKH

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC, 

RODRIGUEZ AND DOES 1-20

Defendants.

No. C-07-00262 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Re Docket No. 34]

On June 13, 2007 the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to remand on the basis

that plaintiff's claims arise out of the administration of an employee benefit plan covered by the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. and,

therefore, were preempted by ERISA. See Clorox Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 779 F.2d 517,

521 (9th Cir. 1985) (ERISA preempts claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan,

where a plaintiff claims that the employer wrongfully and maliciously denied employment benefits.). 

Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted based on new facts since the court's order

issued. Specifically, he submits that his long-term benefits were recently granted and, therefore,

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 36 Filed 08/10/07 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

1 Plaintiff indicates that the initial denial of his long-term disability benefits was

reassessed by Unum Provident, the benefits provider, as part of a reassessment of denials pursuant to

insurance regulations. Unum Provident offered plaintiff, and plaintiff accepted, the opportunity to

participate in the reassessment process in February 2005. Plaintiff agreed not to file a lawsuit until

the reassessment was completed. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-07-00262 RMW

SPT 2

long-term benefits are no longer an issue in the action. In addition, plaintiff claims that he had

previously "agreed with defendant, via its agent Unum Provident, to give up his rights to bring an

ERISA claim until reassessment of his claim was completed."1

 See Pl.'s Req. at 2:5-7; 14-17; Decl.

Rehan Sheikh Supp. Req., Ex. J. Plaintiff intends to amend his complaint to remove ERISA claims

for benefits or retaliation based on long-term disability benefits. 

Plaintiff submits that his remaining claims do not implicate ERISA. Plaintiff represents that

his remaining claims involve defendant's administration of his state short-term disability benefits

and workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff indicates that, upon appeal with the state agency, a

judge determined that plaintiff was eligible for short-term disability benefits. Further, his claim for

worker's compensation benefits is pending before the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board. In

addition, he will be asserting a discrimination claim based on events that took place during the

course of his employment with defendant prior to the termination of his benefits and not based on

the termination of his benefits. 

A motion for reconsideration may be based on "[t]he emergence of new material facts"

occurring after the time the order was issued. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2). Here, plaintiff informs the court

that his long-term disability benefits have since been paid. However, the fact that plaintiff's longterm disability benefits have since been paid does not necessarily mean that there can be no ERISA

preemption, for example, if the alleged discriminatory conduct nevertheless involves the

administration of benefits under an ERISA plan. Here, the court's June 13, 2007 Order Denying

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was based on plaintiff's current operative complaint, which alleges

discrimination stemming from the administration of his long-term disability benefits pursuant to an

ERISA plan. Although plaintiff submits that he intends to file an amended complaint, no amended

complaint (or motion for leave to file an amended complaint) has been filed. As such, the court does

not find a motion for reconsideration of the June 13, 2007 Order proper. 

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 36 Filed 08/10/07 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

2 Plaintiff indicates in his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration that he

intends to file an amended complaint either by stipulation or through leave of court. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-07-00262 RMW

SPT 3

Nevertheless, the court agrees that plaintiff's claims, if amended as represented in his motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, might not be preempted by ERISA. See Ethridge v.

Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1405 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that no ERISA preemption

exists when the loss of benefits are a consequence of, and not a motivating factor behind, the

termination of benefits). In particular, plaintiff represents that his remaining claims involve only

state-based benefits and purported discrimination based on events not involving the administration

of his long-term benefits claim. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint.2 Defendant does not object to plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff's

amended complaint must be filed by August 31, 2007. 

DATED: 8/10/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 36 Filed 08/10/07 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-07-00262 RMW

SPT 4

A copy of this order was mailed on _____________________ to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Rehan Sheikh (Pro Se)

P.O. Box 869

French Camp, CA 95231

(209) 982-9039

Counsel for Defendant:

Marlene S. Muraco

Littler Mendelson

50 West San Fernando Street

14th Floor

San Jose, CA 95113.2303

(408) 998-4150

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

DATED: 8/10/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 36 Filed 08/10/07 Page 4 of 4