Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00270/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00270-0/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.

---

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK KING, D.M.D., on behalf of

himself and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA; 

ASSURANT INSURANCE; 

UNION SECURITY LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW

YORK; UNITED HEALTHCARE

INSURANCE COMPANY; DELTA

DENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY; METLIFE GROUP,

INC.; and UNITED CONCORDIA

INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number

2:06-cv-0270-UWC

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEFENDANTS METLIFE, 

UNION SECURITY, AND CONCORDIA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), Union Security

Life Insurance Company of New York (“Union Security”), and United Concordia

Companies, Inc. (“Concordia”) have moved to sever Plaintiff’s claims against them.

(Docs. 45, 46.) For the reasons which follow, the motions to sever will be effectively

FILED

 2006 Jun-20 PM 12:19

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00270-UWC Document 68 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

granted.

In this putative class action against six defendant insurance companies,

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants paid him less for his services because he is not

a contract dentist with them, and that the Defendants encouraged their enrolleesinsureds not to utilize dentists who have not contracted with them. Plaintiff’s claims

are premised on the separate arrangements between each Defendant and its enrolleesinsureds concerning payments for dental services, and the alleged provision of

Alabama law prohibiting insurance companies from paying lower amounts to noncontracting dentists and otherwise subjecting them to differential treatment. There is

no allegation of conspiracy or concerted action between the Defendants; and there is

no allegation of joint and several liability of the Defendants.

MetLife, Union Security, and Concordia contend that Plaintiff’s claims against

them are improperly joined.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 20(a), all persons may be

joined in one action as defendants if: 1) a cause of action arising out of the same

transaction or occurrence is asserted against them, and 2) one or more common

questions of law or fact will arise in the lawsuit. Rule 20(a). The complaint must

state a claim for relief asserting “joint, several, or alternative liability” arising form

the same transactions or occurrences.

Case 2:06-cv-00270-UWC Document 68 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 3
For example, one of the common issues is whether Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by ERISA. 

1

Page 3 of 3

While Plaintiff easily meets the second prong of the joinder test, he falls flat

1

on the first. This is so because the “transaction or occurrences” alleged in the

complaint involve different defendants, with different dental benefits, and with

different contracts with their enrollee-insureds. Moreover, the singular fact that

several defendants have allegedly violated a statute does not satisfy the “same

transaction or occurrence” requirement. Ex parte ALFA Life Ins.Co., 923 So.2d 272

(Ala. 2005); Nassau County Ass’n of Ins. Agents v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497

F.2d 1151, 1154 (2nd Cir. 1974); Michaels Building Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A., 848

F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988).

Thus, MetLife, Union Security, and Concordia have been improperly joined in

this action. Since they have been improperly joined, the appropriate procedure is to

dismiss the claims against them, rather than severing such claims under the umbrella

of this action.

By separate order, their Motions to Sever will be treated as Motions to Dismiss

without prejudice, and granted.

Done this 20 day of June, 2006. th

______________________________

 U.W. Clemon

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00270-UWC Document 68 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 3