275818707v.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

KRISTA ROSENBERG, M.D., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1332, 1441 (actions removable) and 1446 (removal procedure), Defendant Reliance Standard Life 

Insurance Company (misidentified in the Complaint as “Reliance Standard Insurance Company”) 

removes this Civil Action from the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach 

County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, together 

with all process, pleadings, and Orders, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a), copies of which are 

attached hereto and made part hereof; and in support of this notice, Defendant avers as follows: 

1. On or about August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the 15th Judicial Circuit 

for Palm Beach County, Florida, bearing Case No. 50-2022-CA-008180-XXXX-MB entitled 

Krista Rosenberg, M.D. v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (the “Complaint”). A copy 

of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit “A”. 

2. The Complaint was delivered to the State of Florida Chief Financial Officer, Florida 

Department of Financial Services as statutory registered agent for Defendant on August 30, 2022 

and served on Defendant on September 1, 2022. Therefore, this removal is being filed within 30 

days of the filing of the Complaint and is in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

Case 9:22-cv-81495-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 1 of 5
2 

275818707v.1

3. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking disability benefits under a group policy delivered 

by Reliance Standard to Retina Group of Florida. Complaint, para. 4. 

4. While Plaintiff claims that her claims are not governed by ERISA because she is 

an “owner”, she is wrong.1

5. In addition to a Class for “Owner/Physician”, there is an Eligible Class comprised 

of “Manager and Administrator”. See Exhibit “A” at page 1.0. Also, Retina Group of Florida paid 

100% of the premiums for those in an Eligible Class and participation for those in an Eligible Class 

was mandatory (minimum participation 100%). See Exhibit “A” at pages 1.0 and 1.1. 

6. Also, Plaintiff worked for Retina Group of Florida under an “Employment 

Agreement” at the time of her claimed disability and was identified as an “Employee”, not an 

owner.2 Plaintiff was considered a “Partner Physician” for compensation purposes only and no 

rights or duties of ownership are stated in the Employment Agreement. Therefore, even 

considering only Plaintiff’s claim, which is not the test, the claim is governed by ERISA. See also

Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1, 21 (2004) (a plan 

covering owners and their non-owner employees is governed by ERISA, as are any benefit claims 

of owners). 

7. A cause of action filed in state court seeking recovery of benefits under an 

employee welfare benefit plan is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) as an 

1

 Plaintiff attached to the Complaint a 2013 Certificate/Summary Plan Description. The 

Certificate is not the Policy. A copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit “A”. As shown in the 

Policy, it was amended after 2013 to include non-owner/physicians as eligible participants. See 

Exhibit “A” at page 1.0. 

2

 Due to the confidential terms of the Agreement, it is not being attached to this Notice but will 

be submitted under seal upon request.

Case 9:22-cv-81495-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 2 of 5
3 

275818707v.1

action arising under a federal law. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 

58 (1987); Pilot Life Insurance Company v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987). 

8. “Congress may so completely pre-empt a particular area that any civil complaint 

raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.” Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63-64. 

“Accordingly, [a] suit, though it purports to raise only state law claims, is necessarily federal in 

character by virtue of the clearly manifested intent of Congress. It, therefore, ‘arise[s] under the . 

. . laws . . . of the United States’”. Id. at 67 (quoting 28 U. S. C. § 1331). Complete pre-emption 

applies under ERISA. Id. 

9. This court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e). As a civil action founded upon a claim of right under 

the laws of the United States, this action may be removed to this court pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b) and (c). 

10. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as Plaintiff is a 

citizen of and domiciled in the state of Florida, and Defendant is an Illinois company with a 

principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the amount in controversy exceeds 

Case 9:22-cv-81495-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 3 of 5
4 

275818707v.1

$75,000 based on the amount of benefits claimed by Plaintiff through the date the Complaint was 

filed. 

11. No pleadings, process or orders other than the Complaint have been served on 

Defendant and therefore no other pleadings, process or orders are attached to this Notice as 

required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(a). 

12. All fees required by law in connection with this notice have been filed by defendant. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant removes the above-captioned action to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida from the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach 

County, Florida. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, 

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 

100 Southeast Second Street-Suite 2100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

(305) 374-4400 Telephone 

(305) 579-0261 Facsimile 

By: /s/ Tanya I. Suarez 

TANYA I. SUAREZ 

Florida Bar. No.: 86259 

tanya.suarez@wilsonelser.com

Attorneys for Defendant Reliance 

Standard Life Insurance Company 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically 

filed on this 26th day of September, 2022 with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that 

the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified 

on the Service List below either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

Case 9:22-cv-81495-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 4 of 5
5 

275818707v.1

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

SERVICE LIST 

Richard M. Benrubi, Esq. 

BENRUBI LAW, P.A. 

6501 Congress Avenue, Suite 118 

Boca Raton, FL 33487 

P. (561) 910-8650 

Rbenrubi@benrubilaw.com

cgarcia@benrubilaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Jeffrey M. Liggio, Esq. 

LIGGIO & CORNELL, P.A. 

1615 Forum Place, Suite 3B 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P. (561) 616-3333 

F. (561) 616-3266 

jliggio@liggiolaw.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 9:22-cv-81495-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 5 of 5