1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

LONDI DENNIS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________

§ 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE §

COMPANY, §

§

Defendant. §

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance 

Company (“MetLife”) files this Notice of Removal of the action styled Londi Dennis v. 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 141-331587-22, filed in the 141st Judicial 

District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (the “State Court Action”). In support of this Notice of 

Removal, Defendant shows the Court the following: 

THE PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURT

1. On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff Londi Dennis (“Dennis” or “Plaintiff”) filed 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition (the “Petition”) commencing the State Court Action in the 

141st Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. A true and correct copy of the State 

Court’s Docket Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Petition is attached as Exhibit B.

2. MetLife was served with the Citation and Petition through its registered agent, CT 

Corporation, on March 2, 2022. A true and correct copy of the Citation served on MetLife is 

attached hereto as a part of Exhibit B.

3. This Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) in that it 

is filed within thirty days of MetLife’s receipt of the Petition and Citation.

Case 4:22-cv-00208-P Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
2

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION – PLAINTIFF ASSERTS AN ERISA CLAIM

4. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because it is an action arising under the laws of the United States, specifically the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The ERISA 

civil enforcement provision completely preempts state law causes of action that duplicate, 

supplement, or supplant the ERISA civil enforcement remedy. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 

U.S. 200, 209 (2004); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) (ERISA § 502(a)). The doctrine of complete 

preemption serves as an exception to the rule requiring a federal court's original jurisdiction to

appear on the face of a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 

769, 773 (5th Cir. 2003). For purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule, ERISA’s civil 

enforcement provision has been held to have such extraordinary preemptive power that it 

converts an ordinary state-law complaint into one stating a federal claim which is removable to 

federal court. See, e.g., Davila, 542 U.S. at 209; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 

58, 63-66 (1987); Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan, 338 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

5. Plaintiff seeks to recover life insurance benefits under a “Group” policy issued by 

MetLife, which is governed by ERISA. (See Exh. B, Petition, p. 2, ¶ 7; pp. 2-3). Plaintiff’s son, 

Anthony Troy Dennis, Jr. was a participant in the ERISA-governed plan, funded by the Group 

Policy. (See Exh. B, Petition, p. 2, ¶ 7.). 

6. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (c), the State Court Action is 

removable to this Court, because as reflected in the Petition, Plaintiff’s claims against MetLife

involves life insurance benefits under a “Group” policy governed by ERISA and arise under 

federal law. See Davila, 542 U.S. at 209; Taylor, 481 U.S. at 62-63. ERISA preempts the state 

law claims alleged in the Petition and it provides the exclusive federal remedy for resolution of 

Case 4:22-cv-00208-P Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
3

claims by beneficiaries to recover benefits from such plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and §

1144; see Davila, 542 U.S. at 207-09; Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987).

REQUIREMENTS OF 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) & (b) ARE MET

10. This Notice of Removal is filed in the United States District Court for the District 

and Division in which the State Court Action was filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

11. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of the Petition served on MetLife

and the Citation are attached hereto as Exhibit B, and a copy of the docket sheet from the State 

Court Action is attached as Exhibit A. No orders have been signed by the judge in the State 

Court Action and MetLife has not filed an answer in the State Court Action.

12. Thirty days have not elapsed since MetLife’s receipt of the Petition and Citation, 

through service on its registered agent. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal 

is therefore being filed within the time required by law.

13. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal will be filed in the 141st 

Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas as required by law. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company respectfully submits

this Notice removing the State Court Action to this Court.

Case 4:22-cv-00208-P Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
4

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Linda G. Moore

Linda G. Moore

State Bar No. 14359500

ESTES THORNE & CARR PLLC

3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 2000 

Dallas, Texas 75219

Telephone: (214) 599-4000

Telecopier: (214) 599-4099

lmoore@estesthornecarr.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Notice of 

Removal has been served on Plaintiff’s counsel through the Court’s CM/ECF system on this 23rd

day of March 2022 as follows:

Mark S. Humphreys

Mark S. Humphreys, P.C.

702 Dalworth Street,

Grand Prairie, Texas 75050

Texaslaw94@yaoo.com

/s/ Linda G. Moore

Linda G. Moore

Case 4:22-cv-00208-P Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4