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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kimberly Priestley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Federal Express Corporation Short Term 

Disability Plan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02290-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 The Court now considers Plaintiff Kimberly Priestley’s Motion to Remand to 

Superior Court (“MTR”) (Doc. 14). 

I. BACKGROUND 

On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Federal Express 

Corporation Short Term Disability Plan (“STD Plan”), Federal Express Corporation 

(“FedEx”), and Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”) in Maricopa County Superior 

Court. (Doc. 1-1, Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that she was covered by the STD Plan during 

her employment with FedEx. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges that while working for FedEx 

she became disabled as defined by the STD Plan on or about October 8, 2013, and she 

has remained disabled since that date. (Id. ¶ 10.) After Plaintiff became disabled she 

applied for benefits under the STD Plan. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.) Aetna, as the Claim 

Administrator for the STD Plan, approved Plaintiff’s claim and she received benefits 

through April 7, 2014, at which time Aetna determined that Plaintiff was no longer 

disabled. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff disputed this finding and sent Aetna additional medical, 

Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 23 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

vocational, and lay witness evidence that she believes demonstrated that she remained 

disabled under the STD Plan. (Id. ¶¶ 16-20.) On November 5, 2014, Aetna made a final 

decision denying Plaintiff benefits under the STD Plan and subsequently denied all of 

Plaintiff’s requests to reopen her claim. (Id. ¶ 24.) 

 Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging claims 

for breach of contract and a violation of the Arizona wage law, A.R.S. § 23-355. (Id. 

¶¶ 30-45.) Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of both diversity 

and federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, Defs.’ Notice of Removal at 2-9.) Plaintiff now 

seeks remand to Maricopa County Superior Court. (MTR at 1.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS 

 Removal from state court to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “It is to be 

presumed that a cause lies outside [the] limited jurisdiction [of the federal courts] and the 

burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.’” Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The “strong presumption 

against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is 

any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs 

and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

 Defendants assert that the Court has jurisdiction over the action because Plaintiff 

has alleged a claim “arising under” federal law and the requirements of diversity 

jurisdiction are satisfied. (Doc. 17, Resp. to MTR at 2-8); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 

Defendants’ arguments rely exclusively on their assertion that Plaintiff is seeking to 

recover Long Term Disability (“LTD”) benefits in addition to her claim that she is 

entitled to STD benefits. (See Resp. to MTR at 2-5 (stating that a claim for both STD and 

LTD benefits will likely entitle Plaintiff to damages in excess of $75,000), 5-8 (stating 

Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 23 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

that a claim for LTD benefits is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and therefore “aris[es] under” federal law).) Defendants do 

not dispute that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction if Plaintiff’s claims are 

limited to an alleged violation of the STD Plan. Defendants also do not dispute that this 

Court lacks diversity jurisdiction if the relief sought is limited to unpaid STD benefits 

because the amount in controversy would not exceed $75,000. Accordingly, the Court 

will only address whether the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

benefits under FedEx’s LTD plan. 

 Upon review of the Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff’s claims concern only an 

alleged violation of the STD Plan and her requested relief is limited to unpaid STD 

benefits. Although the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff remains disabled and has been 

“precluded from filing a claim for Long Term Disability [benefits] . . . through the 

Company or another relevant Plan,” it does not make any further allegations claiming 

Plaintiff is entitled to or is seeking LTD benefits in this lawsuit. (See Compl. ¶¶ 28-29, 

34-35.) Further, in her prayer for relief Plaintiff expressly limits her requested relief to 

any and all benefits under the STD Plan “from the date she was first denied those benefits 

through the end of the Short Term Disability Period.” (Id. ¶¶ A-D.) The Court concludes 

that because Plaintiff’s claims are related solely to the STD Plan, Defendants have failed 

to meet their burden of establishing that removal is proper. 

 The Court also grants Plaintiff’s request for an attorneys’ fees award under 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) incurred as a result of Defendants’ improper removal. It was not 

objectively reasonable for Defendants to believe that Plaintiff was seeking to recover 

benefits under FedEx’s LTD plan. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 

141 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under 

§ 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 

seeking removal.”). The Court orders Plaintiff to file a memorandum detailing her 

attorneys’ fees in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(d)-(e) within seven 

days of this Order. Defendants will then have seven days to file any objections to 

Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 23 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Plaintiff’s request in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(f). 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court remands the case to Maricopa County Superior Court because the Court 

lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs incurred as a result of the improper removal. 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Superior Court (Doc. 

14). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants’ Unopposed Motion 

to Allow Its Counsel to Attend Case Management Conference by Telephone (Doc. 22). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file a memorandum detailing 

her attorneys’ fees in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(d)-(e) within 

seven days of this Order. Defendants will have seven days after Plaintiff files her request 

to file any objections. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this case to the Maricopa County 

Superior Court. 

 Dated this 28th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 23 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 4