Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00865/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United HealthCare
Defendant
Newell L. deRoche
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 Plaintiff also has a filed a “Response” to defendant’s reply. Pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d), however, and subject to an exception not relevant here, “once a reply is filed,

no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” See

Civil L.R. 7-3(d). As plaintiff did not seek or obtain Court approval to file his Response, the

Response is hereby STRICKEN. Further, even if the Response had been properly filed,

the Court’s ruling on defendant’s motion, as set forth below, would remain unchanged.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEWELL L. deROCHE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED HEALTHCARE,

Defendant /

No. C-06-0865 MMC

ORDER GRANTING UNITED

HEALTHCARE’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket No. 15)

Before the Court is defendant United Healthcare’s motion for summary judgment,

filed June 16, 2006, on the ground that plaintiff Newell L. deRoche’s claims, all based on

common law breach of contract, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Plaintiff has filed opposition to the motion; defendant has

filed a reply.1

 Having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil

L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the July 28, 2006 hearing on the motion, and rules as follows:

In the instant action, plaintiff seeks insurance benefits from defendant under the

Case 3:06-cv-00865-MMC Document 23 Filed 07/26/06 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

 Specifically, plaintiff seeks coverage for medical costs incurred by his nowdeceased wife at Stanford Hospital from October 26, 2004 through October 28, 2004.

2

General Electric Pensioners Hospital Indemnity Plan (“Plan”).2 For the reasons set forth by

defendant, the evidence is undisputed that the Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan

governed by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1001(1). Consequently, as defendant argues, ERISA

preempts plaintiff’s claims against defendant for breach of contract. See, e.g., Pilot Life

Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 48 (1987) (holding ERISA preempts common law claims

for improper processing of claim for benefits under employee benefit plan); Aetna Health

Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 221 (2004) (holding state law claims based on improper denial

of benefits under ERISA plan preempted by ERISA); Bast v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,

150 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting ERISA preempts state law contract claims

based on denial of benefits under ERISA plan).

Under ERISA, a plan participant may bring suit in federal court to recover benefits

due under an ERISA plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Although plaintiff states in his

opposition that he is “skeptical about relying on ERISA,” (see Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant’s Request for Summary Judgment at 2), the Court will afford plaintiff an

opportunity to amend his complaint to assert an ERISA claim, should he choose to do so.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s breach of contract claims

is hereby GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff is afforded leave to file an amended complaint to assert an ERISA claim. 

Any such amended complaint shall be filed no later than August 25, 2006. If plaintiff does

not file an amended complaint by August 25, 2006, judgment will be entered as set forth

above.

This order terminates Docket No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00865-MMC Document 23 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2