Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00007/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

CRH Americas Incorporated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Andrew Grayson,

Defendant.

No. CV-20-00007-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Although the complaint alleges that the plaintiff in this action is the administrator 

of an employee benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(“ERISA”), the claims do not “arise from the administration” of the Plan, either “directly 

or indirectly.” Gibson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1990); 

see also Bui v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. Inc., 310 F.3d 1143, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Mere 

reference to an ERISA plan does not lead to preemption.”). Indeed, Plaintiff makes no 

argument, in the complaint or the cover sheet, that this is an ERISA case. As such, this 

matter was docketed as an ERISA case in error—it is an ordinary negligence case and 

should be subject to the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (“MIDP”).

Furthermore, the Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 

Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines 

at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 

Plaintiff CRH Americas, Inc. f/k/a Oldcastle, Inc. as Plan Administrator of the CRH 

Case 2:20-cv-00007-DWL Document 7 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Americas Healthcare Plan f/k/a Oldcastle, Inc. Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, as 

subrogee of Milton Epps (“CRH”) alleges this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction based 

solely on diversity grounds. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2.) Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is 

complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

controversy meets this requirement when “all the persons on one side of it are citizens of 

different states from all the persons on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 

(1806). The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of 

proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the 

evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal 

Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke 

diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the 

relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)

CRH alleges that it was during all times relevant to the complaint “the plan 

administrator and a fiduciary of the Americas Healthcare Plan, f/k/a Oldcastle, Inc. Health 

and Welfare Benefits Plan [(‘the Plan’)], which is administered at 900 Ashwood Parkway, 

Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30338.” (Id. ¶ 4.) CRH further alleges that “[t]he Plan is a selffunded employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of 3(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 

1002(1)” (id. ¶ 15), that Mr. Epps is a participant in the Plan (id. ¶ 12), and that the Plan’s 

terms grant the Plan subrogation rights (id. ¶ 14).

CRH has failed to allege facts that establish its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction 

purposes. The Atlanta, Georgia address where the Plan “is administered” is irrelevant to 

the analysis. Indeed, even if the Plan itself were the plaintiff in this action, the location 

where it “is administered” would not bear on the determination of its citizenship. “While 

humans and corporations can assert their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship 

of their members.” Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1014 

(2016). ERISA plans are not humans or corporations, but rather are trusts. Lenon v. St. 

Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 136 F.3d 1365, 1370 n.3 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Few decisions address

Case 2:20-cv-00007-DWL Document 7 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

the citizenship of ERISA plans for diversity purposes. Most cases seem to note their status 

as express trusts and move on.”). Some courts have suggested that the citizenship of an 

ERISA plan is the citizenship of each of its members. Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 820 

F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987) (ERISA plan is a “voluntary unincorporated 

association[],” and therefore “the citizenship of its members is determinative of the 

existence of diversity of citizenship.”); RTP LLC v. ORIX Real Estate Capital, Inc., 827 

F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that “the jurisdictional views expressed in . . . [May 

Dep’t Stores Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 305 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2002), which held that an 

ERISA “plan is a trust, and for diversity purposes a trust is a citizen of whatever state the 

trustee is a citizen of”] . . . did not survive Americold); see also Conagra Foods, Inc. v. 

Americold Logistics, LLC, 776 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2015), as amended (Jan. 27, 

2015), aff’d sub nom. Americold, 136 S. Ct. 1012 (“When [a] trust itself is a party to 

litigation, . . . the trust’s citizenship is derived from the citizenship of all it[s] members.”) 

(internal citations omitted).

At any rate, the ERISA plan itself does not appear to be a party to this lawsuit. 

Rather, the suit was brought by CRH. Assuming that CRH as the plan administrator is a 

real party in interest and real party to the controversy—and there are no other indispensable 

real parties to the controversy, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Found. Surgery Affiliates, LLC, 358 

F. Supp. 3d 426, 433-36 (E.D. Pa. 2018)—it is only the citizenship of CRH that matters. 

Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464 (1980) (“[A] trustee is a real party to the 

controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possesses certain customary 

powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others.”).

CRH is apparently a corporation. A corporation, whether incorporated in a state of 

the United States or in a foreign country, is “deemed a citizen of its place of incorporation 

and the location of its principal place of business.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de 

Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994). 

The Court will therefore require CRH to file an amended complaint1to clarify the 

 

1 This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect CRH’s right under 

Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if it chooses to do so. See, e.g., 

Case 2:20-cv-00007-DWL Document 7 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

allegations that give rise to subject-matter jurisdiction in this action. NewGen, LLC v. Safe 

Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts may permit parties to amend 

defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the proceedings.”). Furthermore, the 

Court will require CRH to file a brief establishing that the plaintiff named in the amended 

complaint is a real party in interest and real party to the controversy.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall amend the docket to reflect that this 

is not an ERISA case and that the action is subject to the MIDP.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by January 31, 2020, CRH shall file (1) an 

amended complaint properly alleging subject-matter jurisdiction, and (2) a brief, not to 

exceed ten pages, establishing that the plaintiff named in the amended complaint is a real 

party in interest and real party to the controversy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if CRH fails to timely file its amended 

complaint and brief, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2020.

 

Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015).

Case 2:20-cv-00007-DWL Document 7 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 4