Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02747/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02747-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 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 CGLIC and Hancock will be collectively referred to throughout as "the

defendants."

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elizabeth Walters Williams, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 06-2747 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Connecticut General Life )

Insurance, Company; John )

Hancock Life Insurance )

Company; Black Corporations, )

I-X, Inclusive; ABC Companies )

I-X Inclusive; and John Does )

I-X, Inclusive, )

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is a motion by defendants

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company ("CGLIC") and John

Hancock Life Insurance Company ("Hancock")1

 for an "order summarily

dismissing Counts One and Two of Plaintiffs' Complaint" for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mot. (doc. 5) at 1. More specifically,

defendants contend that dismissal is proper because count one

Case 2:06-cv-02747-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/26/07 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 2 John Hancock joined in CGLIC's notice of removal. Doc. 2. 

- 2 -

alleging bad faith and count two alleging breach of contract are

"preempted by the exclusive remedial provisions of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§

1001, et seq., in that they "relate to and arise from an employee

benefit plan[.]" Id. at 3. Plaintiff concedes that these two

counts "are preempted by ERISA," and thus should be dismissed. 

Resp. (doc. 9) at 1. 

Given that concession, at first glance it might appear that

dismissal is appropriate. There is one procedural issue which the

court cannot overlook, however. Section 1446(a), which sets forth

the procedure for removal, requires that removing defendants file

with the district court, among other things, "a copy of all

process, pleadings, and orders served upon such . . .

defendants[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (emphasis added). Attached as

exhibits A and B to CGLIC's Notice of Removal2 are the complaints

which form the basis for the present motion. Those complaints 

were filed in state court on September 5, 2006, and served upon

defendants on October 13, 2006. See Doc. 1 at 2, ¶¶ 2-3; exh. A

thereto at 1; and exh. B thereto at 1. 

In her Response, however, plaintiff specifically refers to an

"Amended Complaint" which she filed in State Court "on October 20,

2006[,]" approximately 20 days prior to removal. See Doc. 9 at 1. 

Thus, it appears that the operative complaints here are the amended

complaints, which are not before the court. Assuming that

defendants have been served with these amended complaints, the

failure to attach those complaints to the Notice of Removal is 

Case 2:06-cv-02747-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/26/07 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

- 3 -

"merely [a] procedural" defect and "hence correctable[.]" See

Cooper v. Washington Mutual Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, at *1 (N.D.Cal.

March 19, 2003) (citing Riehl v. National Mutual Insurance Co, 374

F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1967)). 

Nonetheless, if defendants were served with the amended

complaints prior to removal, those complaints must be filed with

the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Such a filing is

necessary because it is the amended complaints to which the court

must look to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this

removed action. Charnley v. Boeing Company, 2007 WL 1365005, at *1

(W.D. Wash. May 8, 2007) (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy

Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979)) ("'In determining the

existence of removal jurisdiction based upon a federal question,

[the federal court] must look to the complaint as of the time the

removal petition was filed.'") The court must undertake this

examination "[e]ven though Plaintiff has not objected to removal by

moving to remand, [because] the court 'has an independent

obligation to examine whether removal jurisdiction exists before

deciding any issue on the merits.'" Id. (quoting Schwarzer, Tashima

& Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, at 2D-11 ¶ 2:609.5

(citing, in turn, Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116

(9th Cir. 2004)). The court must first satisfy itself that it has

jurisdiction over this removed action because the Supreme Court has

rejected the doctrine of "hypothetical jurisdiction." See Steel

Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct.

1003, 1012 (1998). 

For the reasons set forth above, defendants are ORDERED to

advise the court within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order

Case 2:06-cv-02747-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/26/07 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

3 The court observes that the complaints presently before it contain two

paragraphs numbered "5." Normally the court would overlook what appears to be a

typographical error, except that in her Response, plaintiff expressly requests that

the court not dismiss "the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint that relate

to the parties and venue (Paragraphs 1-5)[.]" Resp. (doc. 9) at 1. If plaintiff

continues to take this position, and if, as the court suspects, her amended

complaint includes the same typographical error, she should correct this error. 

- 4 -

as to whether they were served with the amended complaint prior to

removal. If defendants were so served, also within fifteen (15)

days of the date hereof, they shall file and serve the amended

complaints with the Clerk of the Court as part of this motion to

dismiss. On the other hand, if defendants were not served with the

amended complaint prior to removal, also within fifteen (15) days

of the date hereof, they shall file and serve an affidavit in that

regard.3 In this way, before addressing defendants' motion to

dismiss based upon ERISA preemption, the court can assure itself

that it is examining the proper complaint to ascertain whether it

has removal jurisdiction.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-02747-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 4