Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03020/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Employers Insurance Company of Nevada
Defendant
Lincoln National Life Insurance
Defendant
Teresa Shappell
Plaintiff
Sun Life Assurance Company
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA SHAPPELL, No. 2:10-cv-03020-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY;

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE

INSURANCE; EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

COMPANY OF NEVADA and DOES 1

TO 100,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss brought by

Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”). Sun

Life’s Motion seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of

Action, entitled “Breach of Contract: Plan Benefits” as preempted

under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”).

Sun Life argues that said cause of action, to the extent it

purports to allege state law claims, is subsumed by ERISA since

ERISA provides the exclusive remedy for all claims arising from

employer-sponsored group insurance plans. 

1

Case 2:10-cv-03020-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 02/09/11 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

In opposition, Plaintiff agrees that her claims do in fact

pertain to a group long-term disability plan governed by ERISA. 

Despite the moniker given to the cause of action, Plaintiff

asserts that in reality it is a claim for ERISA benefits and

should be construed as such. She concedes, however, that the

Second Cause of Action would have been more appropriately titled

“Second Cause of Action: Breach of ERISA Contract Plan Benefits.” 

Pl.’s Opp’n, 2:21-24.

Because the Second Cause of Action may indeed invoke state

law claims as currently constituted, Sun Life’s Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint,

not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is

electronically filed, in order to properly state a claim for

benefits under ERISA, only. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2011

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Because oral argument was not deemed to be of material 1

assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the

briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

2

Case 2:10-cv-03020-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 02/09/11 Page 2 of 2