Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00668/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00668-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

JANICE WELCH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09cv668-WHA

) 

DOLGENCORP, LLC and UNUM LIFE ) (wo)

INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, ) 

)

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This cause is before the court on several pending motions, including a Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure (Doc. #24) filed by Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dolgencorp”); a Motion to

Supplement Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Janice Welch (“Welch”) (Doc. #32); a Motion to

Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings, filed by Dolgencorp (Doc. #36); a Motion to

Remand Benefit Claim, filed by Welch (Doc. #41); a Motion to Strike UNUM Life Insurance

Company of America’s Response, filed by Welch (Doc. #56); and a Motion to Strike Paragraphs

of a Declaration of Michelle Latham, filed by Welch (Doc. #57).

The Plaintiff originally filed a Complaint in this case in the Circuit Court of Lee County,

Alabama bringing claims against Dollar General Corporation and Robin Chadwick. The

Plaintiff brought claims for workers’ compensation benefits against her employer Dollar General

Corporation, and claims for fraud, and outrageous conduct, arising from an injury she contended

was work-related. 

The Circuit Court of Lee County determined that Welch failed to prove she suffered

injuries as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Welch was

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 8
2

then allowed to file an Amended Verified ERISA Complaint. In the First Amended Verified

ERISA Complaint, Welch alleged that she had attempted to claim benefits using service numbers

listed in a summary plan description provided to her by Dollar General, but was told that she was

not eligible for benefits. Doc. #1, Ex. F, page 4.

Dollar General Corporation and Robin Chadwick filed a Notice of Removal in this court

on July 16, 2009, removing the case on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction over the ERISA

claim. No motion to remand was filed at that time. Welch and the Defendants then filed a

stipulation of dismissal of all state claims as against Robin Chadwick, and Robin Chadwick was

dismissed as a defendant.

In December 2009, Welch filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, and a

Motion to Modify the Motion for Leave to File an Amended ERISA Complaint. This court

allowed the Amendment by Order on December 10, 2009, but denied the Motion to Modify the

Motion for Leave to File. The Amended ERISA Complaint named Dolgencorp, LLC (Dollar

General) as a Defendant and added UNUM Life Insurance Company (“UNUM”) as a Defendant. 

 In the Amended ERISA Complaint, Welch alleged that she was provided documents on July 16,

2009 which indicated that a group insurance policy was issued by UNUM to insure the longterm disability benefits plan. 

Welch filed with UNUM a written claim for long-term disability benefits on December

31, 2009. No claim determination has been made, at least of which this court was aware, at the

time of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The first of the motions currently pending before this court, Dolgencorp’s Motion to

Strike, was filed on January 4, 2010 (Doc. #24). In that motion, Dolgencorp contends that the

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 8
3

experts designated by Welch are not allowed because this court’s review of a benefits

determination is limited to the administrative record. On January 19, 2010 (Doc. #32), Welch

filed a Motion to Supplement Expert Witness Disclosure.

On January 22, 2010, Dolgencorp filed Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice or to Stay

Proceedings to Permit UNUM Life Insurance Company of America to Conclude its

Administrative Review (Doc. #36), which was later joined in by UNUM (Doc. #46). In response

to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand Benefit Claim (Doc. #41),

stating that if, as the Defendants contend, her administrative remedies are not exhausted, her

claim should be remanded. She subsequently clarified her motion as seeking remand only of the

benefit claim brought against Dolgencorp. (Doc. #47). 

Having been given the opportunity to do so by Order of the court, (Doc. #42), UNUM

filed a response and opposition to the Motion to Remand. Welch filed a Motion to Strike this

response for lack of standing (Doc. #56). Welch also moved to strike various portions of an

affidavit submitted by Dolgencorp in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. #57).

II. MOTION TO REMAND STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (1994); Wymbs

v. Rep. State Ex. Comm’ee, 719 F.2d 1072, 1076 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1103

(1984). As such, federal courts only have the power to hear cases that they have been authorized

to hear by the Constitution or the Congress of the United States. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 

Because federal court jurisdiction is limited, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of removed

cases where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear. See Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 3 of 8
4

III. DISCUSSION

Removal of a case to federal court is only proper if the case originally could have been

brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There being ERISA claims on the face of

the Amended ERISA Complaint which was removed from the Circuit Court of Lee County to

this court, there is no question that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Lanfear v.

Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008) (“When a plaintiff makes a plausible

argument that a federal statute creates his right to relief, the district court has subject-matter

jurisdiction over that complaint.”). Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction exists because of

the ERISA claims brought against UNUM after removal. See Connecticut State Dental Ass'n v.

Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1345 n.5 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Because the plaintiffs

had amended their complaint after removal to add an ERISA claim, this Court had jurisdiction

over the claim regardless of whether the original claims were completely preempted and removal

was improper.”). Even though this case may ultimately present a factual dispute as to how many

ERISA plans are involved, and the interaction of certain plan documents, this court has subject

matter jurisdiction over claims for violation of ERISA, and the Motion to Remand is due to be

DENIED. 

With respect to the Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion to Stay, Welch

acknowledges that the claim she asks this court to remand is an ERISA claim, but contends that

this one claim should be remanded because failure to exhaust administrative remedies means that

the claim was not ripe for removal. 

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 4 of 8
 Welch further relies on Bauknight v. Monroe Co., Fla., 446 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2006), 1

but that case does not provide the framework for analysis for an ERISA case because it involved

exhaustion requirements in state court litigation before bringing federal takings clause claims.

5

Welch’s primary authority for her argument is Mason v. Continental Group, Inc., 763

F.2d 1219 (11th Cir. 1985), which certainly holds that administrative remedies must be 1

exhausted before a claim is brought in federal court, but does not support the remedy of severing

a single ERISA claim and remanding it to state court, which has been proposed by Welch in this

case. In Mason, the plaintiffs filed suit without making any effort to resolve their claims through

the available grievance procedures, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a grant of summary

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 1223, 1227.

This is not a case where no claim for benefits was made. Instead, Welch alleges that she

made a claim for benefits from Dollar General, which she thought was the proper procedure, and

was denied benefits. Welch then made a claim for benefits under the UNUM policy, of which

she alleges she had no knowledge at the time this suit was filed, and that determination has not

yet been made. Clearly, in this ERISA case, the court has subject matter jurisdiction, but the

court cannot review a benefits determination that has not yet been made. 

The Eleventh Circuit has indicated to courts that in cases in which a benefits claim

process was begun, but the letter rendering the benefits decision is insufficient, courts are to send

the case back to the benefits determination process before proceeding. See, e.g., Counts v. Am.

Gen. Life and Accident Ins. Co., 111 F.3d 105, 108 (11th Cir.1997). This case presents an

analogous situation insofar as a benefits determination process has begun, and must be

concluded, before there is a determination for the court’s review. The court agrees with the

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 5 of 8
 Welch has moved to strike UNUM’s response to the motion to remand for lack of 2

standing because she only seeks, as she clarified in a later filing, to remand the claim against

Dolgencorp. Having ordered the parties to respond before Welch clarified the scope of her

motion, however, the court has considered this brief. See Doc. #42. The court has not

considered the evidence submitted by UNUM which is subject to the motion to strike, it being

unncessary to the resolution of the issues presented.

6

Defendants, therefore, that the proper course is to allow for the benefits determination process to

conclude before continuing with this case. Rather than dismiss Welch’s Complaint, however,

particularly in light of her apparent contention, which is disputed by the Defendants, that she 2

exhausted the benefits claim procedure with respect to a separate Dollar General plan, the court

concludes that a stay of this case is the better alternative. See Michael v. American Intern.

Group, Inc. No. 4:05cv02300, 2006 WL 5736351, *1 (E.D.Mo. June 20, 2006) (stating, “where

a claimant has prematurely filed suit, a court may stay proceedings to allow the claimant to

complete the administrative review process.”); Schaffer v. Prud. Ins. Co. Of Am., 301 F. Supp.

2d 383, 387 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (district court stayed case so that plaintiff could pursue additional

administrative remedies). Accordingly, the court concludes that the Defendants’ alternative

Motion to Stay Proceedings to Permit UNUM Life Insurance Company of America to Conclude

its Administrative Review is due to be GRANTED.

As to the issues raised by Welch and Dolgencorp in motions regarding expert disclosure,

because there has been no final benefits determination by UNUM, the court cannot determine

whether expert testimony will be properly considered by this court in reviewing any benefits

determination. Therefore, the court will allow Welch’s disclosure, but will entertain any motion

that might be relevant as to expert evidence should such motion be filed at the appropriate time,

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 6 of 8
7

once the stay in this case has been lifted. Similarly, the court will deny Welch’s motion to

supplement at this time, without prejudice to it being re-filed after the stay is lifted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure (Doc. #24) is DENIED, without

prejudice to being raised again, either as a motion to strike, or an evidentiary motion, filed at an

appropriate time after the stay imposed in this case has been lifted.

2. The Motion to Supplement Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Janice Welch (Doc.

#32) is DENIED, without prejudice to being filed at an appropriate time after the stay imposed in

this case has been lifted.

3. The Motion to Remand Benefit Claim by Janice Welch (Doc. #41) is DENIED.

4. The Motion to Strike UNUM Life Insurance Company of America’s Response, filed

by Janice Welch (Doc. #56) is DENIED.

5. The Motion to Strike Paragraphs of a Declaration of Michelle Latham, filed by Janice

Welch (Doc. #57), not having been considered by the court in resolving the other pending

motions, is DENIED as moot. 

6. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, but the the Alternative to Stay Proceedings (Doc.

#36) is GRANTED. 

This case is STAYED pending the conclusion of UNUM Life Insurance Company of

America’s administrative review of Janice Welch’s benefits claim.

The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report at the expiration of 60 days from

the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order or, within 10 days of the conclusion of UNUM

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 7 of 8
8

Life Insurance Company of America’s administrative review of Janice Welch’s claim, whichever

event occurs first.

DONE this 5th day of March, 2010.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/05/10 Page 8 of 8