Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01766/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01766-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

Chris Komarnisky, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-01766-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 11, 2013, the Court issued an Order dismissing this action for failure to

state a claim. (Doc. 8). However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint within twenty-one days. (Id. at 5). In the Order, the Court declined to address

Defendant’s arguments that, (1) Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by ERISA, and (2)

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, because Plaintiff’s original Complaint,

filed in state court, failed to satisfy federal pleading requirements. (Id. at 4 n.1.).

Plaintiff has since filed a letter with the Court entitled “Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 9.). As the Court noted in the Order dismissing

Plaintiff's initial Complaint, Plaintiff failed to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 7) within the deadline and prior to the Court issuing the Order (Doc. 8). Accordingly,

Plaintiff's letter cannot be considered as a Response to the Motion to Dismiss. In Plaintiff's

letter, Plaintiff argues his claims are not governed by ERISA and provides evidence

suggesting he may have exhausted his administrative remedies. (Doc. 9 at 1). Additionally,

Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this case to the state court, arguing that this Court is

Case 2:12-cv-01766-JAT Document 10 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at 2). However, Defendants removed the

action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.”). (Doc. 1). Thus, Plaintiff's argument is irrelevant. 

Although Plaintiff’s letter may cast some doubt on Defendant’s prior arguments, the

letter is entirely devoid of a cognizable legal theory. Thus, the letter is insufficient to qualify

as an amended complaint filed in accordance with the Court's Order. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (the Court may dismiss a complaint

if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or alleges enough facts under a cognizable legal theory).

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has almost expired. Because Plaintiff is a pro

se litigant, the Court is still unable to conclude that Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the defects

by filing an amended complaint that complies with federal pleading requirements, and the

deadline for filing an amended complaint has not passed, the Court will grant Plaintiff

additional time to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court's Order (Doc. 8).

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff ten (10) days from the date of this Order to file

an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint before this deadline,

the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, dismissing this case with prejudice.

DATED this 1st day of March, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01766-JAT Document 10 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 2