Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-02142/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-02142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441eri - Petition for removal - E.R.I.S.A.

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE )

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, for )

its division, UNIVERSITY OF ) 

ALABAMA HOSPITAL )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-cv-2142–TMP 

)

ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE )

RESOURCES, INC.; CHARLES )

WILLIS, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER OF REMAND

The magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation

in this action on May 8, 2009, recommending that the action be

remanded to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Defendant

Alternative Insurance Resources, Inc., filed its timely

objections to the report and recommendation on May 26, 2009,

resulting in the undersigned being assigned to review de novo

the report and recommendations and objections pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Also pending at the time was a motion

filed by defendant Willis to stay all proceedings in this

matter, pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,

during his military service in Iraq. The court granted the

FILED

 2010 Jan-06 PM 12:25

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:08-cv-02142-WMA Document 25 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 5
2

stay on July 20, 2009. Upon Willis’s return to the United

States in October, the stay was lifted on December 23, 2009.

Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo the

report and recommendation, the objections to it, and all other

matters pertinent to this question, the court finds that the

objections are due to be OVERRULED, the report ADOPTED, and

the recommendation ACCEPTED.

The magistrate judge recommended that the action be

remanded on two distinct bases: (1) that the complaint for

declaratory judgment filed by the plaintiff sought, in effect,

an advisory opinion, which failed to create a “case or

controversy” under Article III for purposes of subject-matter

jurisdiction; and (2) that super preemption to not support the

removal of the action because plaintiff’s complaint did not

involve an ERISA claim. Defendant Alternative Insurance has

objected to both of these conclusions. After careful

consideration, the court agrees with the magistrate judge.

First, UAB’s complaint is very carefully crafted to seek

only declaratory relief under Alabama’s Declaratory Judgment

Act. Nowhere does it make a plain, simple, straightforward

demand for a money judgment; nowhere does it allege a claim

for breach of contract or any other common-law claim for legal

Case 2:08-cv-02142-WMA Document 25 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 5
3

relief on a money debt. The obligation under Rule 8 of both

state and federal rules of civil procedure for a complaint to

make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief,” has meaning and

consequences. If the pleader, represented by experienced

counsel, says it seeks only a declaratory judgment, the court

must assume that the pleader means it, and that the complaint

is not breach-of-contract wolf disguised in declaratoryjudgment clothing. As pointed out by the magistrate judge,

the consequences of the pleader’s choices are not merely

linguistic. If the court were to proceed with this action as

a declaratory judgment and declare “the rights and

responsibilities of the parties with regard to the unpaid

balance,” as defendant would have it, that declaratory

judgment would not be a collectible money judgment upon which

UAB could proceed to collect. Indeed, to do so, UAB would yet

have to file another action for collection of the debt,

wielding the declaration in this case as a sword to strike

down the potential defenses of waive, estoppel, and accord and

satisfaction. “A declaratory judgment is for the purpose of

finally settling an actual controversy, and ordinarily should

not be entered if it will not do so.” Tennessee Coal, Iron &

Case 2:08-cv-02142-WMA Document 25 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 5
4

R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 137 F.2d 176, 179 (5th Cir.

1943). Clearly, a declaratory judgment in this action will

not “finally” settle the controversy between these parties.

At best it would only give advice about the potential

viability of certain defenses to the real claim, i.e., the

claim for the unpaid bill. At worst, it would create

unnecessary and unseemly conflict between this court and any

state court in which the collection action by UAB is

ultimately filed. The magistrate judge correctly concluded

that the complaint seeks only an advisory opinion and,

therefore, fails to vest the court with Article III

jurisdiction.

Second, the magistrate judge also correctly found that

the complaint does not involve an ERISA claim. Even assuming

that UAB has standing by virtue of an assignment by Willis to

sue defendant Alternative Insurance directly for Willis’s

ERISA benefits, it has not done so. As explained above, UAB

seeks only a very narrowly drawn form of declaratory relief,

which does not implicate an ERISA plan. The complaint simply

does not ask the court to order that benefits be paid; rather,

UAB seeks a declaration that its own conduct has not barred or

estopped it from, perhaps, seeking further relief in the

Case 2:08-cv-02142-WMA Document 25 Filed 01/06/10 Page 4 of 5
5

future. Thus, the complaint does not seek “compensatory

relief akin to that available under § 1132(a).” Butero v.

Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Co., 174 F.3d 1207, 1212 (11th

Cir. 1999); see also Hobbs v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of

Alabama, 276 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2001).

Because the court believes, after careful, de novo

consideration, that the magistrate judge correctly analyzed

the remand issue before the court, the defendant’s objections

to the report and recommendation are OVERRULED, and the report

is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly,

the motion to remand is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to

remand this action to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County.

DONE this 6th day of January, 2010.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02142-WMA Document 25 Filed 01/06/10 Page 5 of 5