Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02290/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02290-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diana Lyn Schaum, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Honeywell Retiree Medical Plan Number

507 and Business Entities A through E, 

Defendants, 

vs.

Computerized Healthcare Management

Services, LLC d/b/a Carestaf of Arizona

Intervenor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-2290-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Carestaf's Complaint

in Intervention, (Dkt. #87). After reviewing the motion, the Court issues the following

Order. 

I. Background

Intervenor Carestaf of Arizona ("Intervenor") has asserted a claim under the 

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

Accompanying this claim, Intervenor has asserted the following state law causes of action:

(1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) fraud; and (4) negligent

misrepresentation. 

Case 2:04-cv-02290-MHM Document 132 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Defendant Honeywell Retiree Medical Plan Number 507 ("Defendant") moves

this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). FED.R.CIV.PRO. In

bringing its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant relies on an extraneous document to support its

position. Specifically, Defendant directs the Court's attention to Honeywell's 2001 Retiree

Medical Plan Number 507 ("the Plan"). Defendant repeatedly cites to this document as

prohibiting the assignment of Plaintiff's rights under the Plan to Intervenor, thus

demonstrating that the Intervenor lacks standing to assert its ERISA claim. Defendant

contends that because this document is an integral document summarizing the key terms of

Defendant's Plan, and because Intervenor's Complaint relies and incorporates the Plan terms,

by reference, this Court may consider the Plan document in support of its Motion to Dismiss

without converting the Plan's motion into a motion for summary judgment. See Parrino v.

FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that defendant's attachment of extrinsic

document to motion to dismiss did not convert the motion into a motion for summary

judgment where the attached document was integral to the plaintiff's claims and the

authenticity was not disputed). 

Intervenor; however, takes issue with the authenticity of the Plan document relied

on by Defendant. Specifically, Intervenor contends that the Plan document at issue may not

be the document that Honeywell relied on in reducing Plaintiff's skilled nursing care from

24 hours to 2 hours per day. Intervenor argues that the Plan relied on by Defendant may

govern only the year of 2001 and that there is evidence suggesting that a more recent plan

exists, such as a 2003 plan. Intervenor contends that this position is supported by

inconsistencies between the 2001 Plan and references by the Plan Administrator to specific

page numbers of the Plan that do not contain the information or term referenced. In short,

Intervenor disputes the authenticity of the 2001 Plan document relied on by Defendant in

asserting its Motion to Dismiss and requests that Defendant's Motion be treated as a motion

for summary judgment under Rule 56.

II. Standard

Case 2:04-cv-02290-MHM Document 132 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides in pertinent part: 

If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for

failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not

excluded by court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary

judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall

be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent

to such a motion by Rule 56.

 Although, as mentioned above, there are exceptions to the conversion of motions to 

dismiss into motions for summary judgment, no such exception applies in this case. See

Parrino., 146 F.3d at 706 (9th Cir. 1998). Assuming even that the extrinsic 2001 Plan

document relied upon by Plaintiff is integral to Plaintiff's Complaint, there is still issue with

the authenticity of it as demonstrated by the concern raised by Intervenor. As such,

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be treated as a motion for summary judgment and the

Parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to

Defendant's Rule 56 motion with respect to the issues raised.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED converting Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt.

#87) into a motion for summary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will be given 20 days from the

date of this Order to perform any necessary discovery and submit material pertinent to

Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment. 

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02290-MHM Document 132 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 3