Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05227/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05227-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California
Defendant
Gary Giannini
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

GARY GIANNINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-05227 LB

ORDER (1) DISCHARGING THE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, (2)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS, AND (3) INFORMING

PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL HELP

CENTER 

[Re: ECF No. 5]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gary Giannini filed a breach of contract claim and a “failure to notify” claim against

Defendant Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California (the “Fund”) in state court. The

Fund removed the action to federal court, and now moves to dismiss Mr. Giannini’s claims, arguing

that they are preempted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 

(See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1; Motion, ECF No. 5.1

) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the

court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and vacates the February 12,

2015 hearing. For the reasons explained below, the court finds that the Fund has met its burden to

show that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. And upon consideration of the

papers submitted and the applicable legal authority, the court grants the Fund’s motion to dismiss.

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Even though Mr. Giannini’s opposition was styled as a motion for summary judgment, it

clearly was not, so the court issued an order construing it as an opposition to the Fund’s motion. 

(1/13/2015 Order, ECF No. 14.) In his opposition, Mr. Giannini also declares that he invokes the

Seventh Amendment (right to a jury trial), but this is inapposite to the Fund’s ERISA preemption

argument. (Opposition, ECF No. 13 at 6.) 

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 2

STATEMENT

On May 27, 2014, Mr. Giannini filed a complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court against

the Fund for breach of contract and “failure to notify.” (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) He seeks

$17,500. (Id. at 9.) His complaint refers to allegations made in an “attached declaration,” but none

was attached. (See id.) His case management statement, however, makes clear that he has sued the

Fund for “withholding of retirement funds due to lack of appropriate notice.” (Case Management

Statement, ECF No. 1 at 10.) 

On November 25, 2014, the Fund removed the action to this court, asserting federal question

subject-matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2.) The Fund argues that federal

question jurisdiction exists because Mr. Giannini’s claims are “completely preempted” by ERISA. 

(Id.) It says that “the gravamen of the Complaint[] is to seek benefits from a pension plan governed

by” ERISA. (Id.) 

Thereafter, on December 2, 2014, the Fund filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Giannini’s action

because his claims are completely preempted by ERISA. (Motion, ECF No. 5.) Although Mr.

Giannini was served with the motion, he failed to file an opposition to it within the deadline for

doing so. Nevertheless, in light of Mr. Giannini’s pro se status, the court issued an order extending

the deadline for him to file an opposition and making clear to him that if he did not file an

opposition, he risked having the court grant the Fund’s motion and dismiss his action. (12/24/2014

Order, ECF No. 11.) Mr. Giannini then filed a opposition on January 8, 2015, which states (in the

declaration attached to it) that he “was never informed hat [he] was supposed to send a copy of my

[Social Security Disability Insurance] award letter to [the Fund] within 90 days of receiving it.” 

(Opposition, ECF No. 13 at 6.2

) The Fund filed a reply to Mr. Giannini’s opposition on January 15,

2015. (Reply, ECF No. 15.)

Upon further review of the Fund’s notice of removal, it became clear that the Fund had not

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 If at any time before final judgment, it appears the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,

the court may remand the case to state court either sua sponte or on motion of a party. See 28 U.S.C.

1447(c); see, e.g., Cattarin v. Kraft Foods N.A., Inc. Tip Plan, No. 09-CV-534A, 2009 WL 3459662,

at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2009) (court sua sponte raised the issue of whether it had subject-matter

jurisdiction based on complete preemption under ERISA); Chesters v. Welles-Snowden, 444 F.

Supp. 2d 342, 343 (D. Md. 2006) (same).. The party who invoked the federal court’s jurisdiction

has the burden of establishing it. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04

(9th Cir. 1996); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v.

Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 3

adequately supported its assertion of federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, on January 23,

2015, the court sua sponte ordered the Fund to show cause why the action should not be remanded

back to state court. (OSC, ECF No. 16.3) The court ordered the Fund to provide a response in

writing no later than January 30, 2015. (Id.) In response, the Fund filed the Declaration of Gene

Price, Plan Administrator for the Fund, who stated that the Fund was established by, and is

administered in accordance with, ERISA. (Price Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 17-1 at 2.) Mr. Price also

attached a copy of the Plan and its Summary Plan Description, which also makes clear that the Plan

is governed by ERISA. (Id., Ex. 1, ECF No. 17-1 at 3-206.) He also attached a written appeal,

dated December 20, 2012, from Mr. Giannini, in which Mr. Giannini says, “I am “appealing the

denial of retroactive disability pension effective date, because I was unaware that the SSDI award

had to be sent to C&H Welfare within 90 days. I called in August and October [and] no analysts

told [me] to mail or fax it.” (Id., Ex. 2, ECF No. 17-1 at 207-08.) He also attached the Fund’s

February 7, 2013 written denial of Mr. Giannini’s appeal. (Id., Ex. 3, ECF No. 17-1 at 209-10.) 

ANALYSIS

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

A court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when it does

not contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 4

not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant

has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.). “While a complaint attacked by a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal

citations and parentheticals omitted).

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If the court dismisses the complaint, it should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend

is made “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc.

v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)). But when a party

repeatedly fails to cure deficiencies, the court may order dismissal without leave to amend. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where

district court had instructed pro se plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim

with leave to amend).

II. DISCUSSION

The Fund argues, in both its notice of removal and its motion to dismiss, that Mr. Giannini’s

claim is completely preempted by ERISA. The court agrees. 

A state law claim may be subject to “complete preemption” or “conflict preemption” under

ERISA. If a state law claim is subject to complete preemption under the civil enforcement

provisions of ERISA § 502(a), it may be removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441

(defendant may remove case brought in state court if federal district courts have original

jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising

under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States); Marin General Hosp., v. Modesto &

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 In cases removed from state court, federal jurisdiction ordinarily must appear on the face of

the well-pleaded complaint at the time of removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d

1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979). Complete preemption under ERISA is an exception to this rule in that

federal law displaces a plaintiff’s state law claim, no matter how carefully pleaded. See Metro. Life

Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1987); Gregory v. SCIE, LLC, 317 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.

2003). 

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 5

Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944-46 (9th Cir. 2009).4

If, however, a state claim is subject only to conflict preemption under ERISA § 514(a), ERISA

provides only a federal defense. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (relevant provisions of ERISA shall

supersede state law insofar as they relate to any non-exempt ERISA employee benefit plan); Marin

General Hosp., 581 F.3d at 949. What this means is that with conflict preemption, a state claim is

not converted into an action “arising under federal law,” and removal is improper. Metro. Life

Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 64; see also Marin General Hosp., 581 F.3d at 945.

As the removing party, the Fund has the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. That requires

the Fund to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Giannini’s state law claims are

subject to complete preemption under ERISA § 502(a). See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 980 F.2d 709,

712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). To do this, the Fund must prove that Mr. Giannini’s state law claims are

encompassed in ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme set forth in ERISA § 502(a) by showing the

following: (1) that Mr. Giannini at some point in time could have brought its claims under ERISA §

502(a)(1)(B); and (2) there is no other independent legal duty implicated by the Fund’s denial of

retirement benefits. See Marin General Hosp., 518 F.3d at 946 (quoting test set forth in Aetna

Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004)). 

The Fund has met its burden. As for the first prong of the Davila test, Mr. Giannini could have

brought his claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). The Plan Administrator for the Fund, Mr. Price,

stated that the Fund was established by, and is administered in accordance with, ERISA, and the

Plan and its Summary Plan Description confirms this. (Price Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 17-1 at 2; id., Ex.

1, ECF No. 17-1 at 75, 94.) It is a covered plan. ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) says that a civil action may

be brought by a participant or beneficiary “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 5 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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 5

 Because the court finds Mr. Giannini's claims to be completely preempted under ERISA,

the court also discharges its order to show cause. 

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 6

plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under

the terms of the plan.” Mr. Giannini filed this action to recover the $17,500 that he believes he is

owed under his ERISA-covered pension plan. Thus, he could have brought his claims under ERISA

§ 502(a)(1)(B). 

The second prong of the Davila test is met “where there is no other independent legal duty

that is implicated by a defendant’s actions.” Davila, 542 U.S. at 210. State law legal duties are not

independent of ERISA where “interpretation of the terms of [the] benefit plan forms an essential

part” of the claim, and legal liability can exist “only because of [the] administration of

ERISA-regulated benefit plans.” Id. at 211. Here, the basis of Mr. Giannini’s claims is that the Plan

did not properly administer the Plan (i.e., it breached its obligations under the Plan), and he alleges

no other independent legal duty violated by the Plan. The court also cannot discern one. 

Accordingly, the court finds that the second prong of the Davila test also is satisfied. 

Because both Davila prongs are satisfied, the court finds that Mr. Giannini’s breach of contract

claim and “failure to notify” claim are completely preempted by ERISA and thus must be dismissed

with prejudice. See Guenther v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 5:11–CV–00380–EJD, 2012 WL

1155647, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s preempted breach of

contract claim).5

 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the court grants the Fund’s motion and dismisses with prejudice Mr.

Giannini’s breach of contract claim and his “failure to notify” claim with prejudice. However,

because it is not clear whether it would be futile to allow Mr. Giannini to allege a claim against the

Fund under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), the court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Giannini’s complaint. 

See Pizza v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., Inc., No. C–13–0688 MMC, 2013 WL 1891405, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

May 6, 2013) (dismissing complaint without prejudice where it was not clear whether an amendment

to allege ERISA claims necessarily would be futile); Puccio v. Standard Ins. Co., No.

12–cv–04640–JST, 2013 WL 1411155, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013) (dismissing plaintiff’s

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 6 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-05227 LB

ORDER 7

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

preempted defamation claim with prejudice but allowing plaintiff leave to amend to add a claim

under ERISA). 

Accordingly, Mr. Giannini may file a First Amended Complaint that alleges a claim under

ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) by February 27, 2015. Because he is proceeding pro se, the court reminds

Mr. Giannini that the court previously provided him with a copy of the district court's Handbook for

Litigants Without a Lawyer. (See 12/24/2014 Order (Handbook attached).) It provides instructions

on how to proceed at every stage of a case, including discovery, motions, and trial. It may be

download a copy at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.

The court also informs Mr. Giannini that he may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help

Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-8982, or by

signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, pro se litigants are able

to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2014 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05227-LB Document 19 Filed 02/05/15 Page 7 of 7