Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01983/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01983-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

Subsequent references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of 1

Civil Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVAN BRIAN KASS, ) 2:07-CV-1983-GEB-KJM

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE,)

a South Carolina Corporation; )

HADLEY WIELER; and )

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Colonial Life and Accident Insurance (“Colonial”)

moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative for summary judgment. 1

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that the insurance payments

Colonial offered Plaintiff under a Long Term Disability (“LTD”)

insurance policy Plaintiff purchased were not as high as a Colonial

Case 2:07-cv-01983-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/17/08 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

The Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards are well known and need 2

not be repeated here. 

Colonial does not assert that Plaintiff’s employer 3

“maintained” the LTD policy as an ERISA plan, but instead argues only

that Plaintiff’s employer “established” the LTD.

The summary judgment standards are well known and need not be 4

repeated here.

2

agent represented they would be when Plaintiff purchased the LTD. 

(Compl. ¶¶ 5, 9-10.) Therefore, Plaintiff alleges against Defendants

three state law claims in his Complaint: fraud, breach of contract,

and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

(See Compl. ¶¶ 1-17.) Colonial argues these claims are preempted by

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”),

prescribed in 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Plaintiff counters his claims

are not preempted since the LTD policy was not “established” or

“endorsed” by Plaintiff’s employer, as required to be governed by

ERISA.

MOTION TO DISMISS2

To prevail on its dismissal motion, Colonial must

demonstrate that the LTD policy was “established or maintained by an

employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). “A plan is ‘established’ when there 3

has been some degree of implementation by the employer going beyond a

mere intent to confer a benefit.” Butero v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins.

Co., 174 F.3d 1207, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). Colonial has not shown

that Plaintiff’s employer established or maintained the LTD policy. 

Therefore, Colonial’s dismissal motion is denied.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT4

Colonial seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff’s state law

claims, arguing that the undisputed facts show that the LTD policy was

Case 2:07-cv-01983-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/17/08 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

an ERISA plan. (Mot. at 3:14-9:28.) Plaintiff opposes the motion and

requests additional time for discovery under Rule 56(f). (Opp’n at

8:14-10:6.) A party opposing a summary judgment motion on Rule 56(f)

grounds “must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further

discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude

summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d

1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff argues discovery would reveal facts allowing him

to defeat Colonial’s motion. Specifically, Plaintiff argues he would

be able to show that his employer did not “establish,” “maintain” or

“endorse” the LTD policy, and thereby demonstrate that the LTD policy

is not an ERISA plan. Plaintiff contends that, even if his employer

did “establish” or “maintain” the LTD policy, Plaintiff would be able

to defeat the motion by showing that the LTD policy falls within the

“safe harbor” exemption from ERISA. (Opp’n at 10:2.) Under the “safe

harbor” exemption, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(j), a group

insurance plan is exempt from ERISA coverage when the plan meets four

requirements, including the requirement that the employer has not

“endors[ed]” the plan. Stuart v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 217 F.3d

1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).

Colonial counters that Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) request should

be denied because further discovery on these issues would be futile

and Plaintiff has not diligently conducted discovery. (Reply at 6:19-

7:16.) However, Colonial filed its summary judgment motion prior to

serving its initial disclosures under Rule 26(a), and Plaintiff

represents he lacks the discovery necessary to respond adequately to

the motion. (Decl. of Trenton Diehl in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ.

Case 2:07-cv-01983-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/17/08 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

4

J. ¶ 3.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) motion is granted and

Colonial’s summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01983-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 4