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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeffrey Steven Hyman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Liberty Mutual Group Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02522-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff Jeffrey Hyman filed a pro se complaint in the 

Moon Valley Justice Court alleging that Defendants “failed to properly administer 

COBRA benefits” and “acted in bad faith by denying prescription coverage benefits[.]”. 

(Doc. 1-1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants “owed a duty to administer COBRA benefits 

to all qualifying persons in an efficient and timely manner based on standards created in 

the ERISA statutes.” (Id.) He seeks $10,000 in damages. (Id.) 

 On December 10, 2015, Defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of 

federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) On December 17, 2015, Defendants moved to 

dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 5.) Defendants also filed a motion for ruling. (Doc. 11.) 

Plaintiff did not respond to either motion, and thus both motions are unopposed. 

 Plaintiff appears to allege state law claims of gross negligence and bad faith 

arising out of Defendants’ denial of employee welfare benefits. (Doc. 1-1 at 3.) 

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because his claims are 

Case 2:15-cv-02522-DLR Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

1001 et seq, and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under ERISA. (Doc. 5 

at 4, 7.) Plaintiff’s claims clearly arise under ERISA, not state law, as they relate to 

benefits paid out under an employee welfare benefit plan, see 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1), a 

copy of which Defendants have submitted to the Court, (Doc. 5-1).1

 Regardless, even assuming Plaintiff properly brings these claims under ERISA, 

the Court concludes that he has not adequately alleged that he exhausted the 

administrative procedures set forth in the plan. This is fatal to both of his claims. See 

Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan, 50 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“[A] claimant must avail himself or herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures 

before bringing suit in federal court.”); see also Landrith v. Madison Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 

No. CV 08-1284-PHX-MHM, 2009 WL 2515622, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2009) 

(dismissing complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the plaintiffs 

did not “claim that they satisfied the Plan’s administrative process”). The complaint 

lacks any factual allegations relating to whether Plaintiff participated fully or partially in 

the plan’s administrative process. Because he is appearing pro se, however, the Court 

dismisses Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 5), is GRANTED, 

and Defendants’ motion for ruling, (Doc. 11), is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed 

to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 17th day of February, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

 

1

 Courts may consider documents that “form[] the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:15-cv-02522-DLR Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2