IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT J. ) 

HILTON, Deceased, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:20-cv-04022 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., and ) 

PAULA M. OBUCHOWSKI, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant ) 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

 Removing party, SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (“Securian”), by its attorney 

Jacqueline J. Herring of Smith, von Schleicher & Associates, hereby provides Notice of Removal 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 et seq., and respectfully presents this Court the following grounds 

for removal. Co-defendant Paula M. Obuchowski (“Obuchowski”), by her attorney Kristin 

Suchy of Griffin Williams LLP, joins in and consents to removal. Obuchowski’s Joinder and 

Consent to Removal to Federal Court is attached as Exhibit A. 

 1. Removing party Securian is a defendant in a Petition for Citation to Recover 

Assets (“Petition”) filed by Krystal R. Hilton, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Robert 

J. Hilton (the “Estate”) in the action captioned Estate of Robert J. Hilton, Deceased, No. 2020-P995, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Probate 

Division. A copy of the Petition is attached as Exhibit B. The Petition constitutes all of the 

process, pleadings and orders received by Securian. 

2. In the Petition, the Estate seeks payment of life insurance benefits from Securian 

under an employee welfare benefit plan (“Plan”), sponsored by United Airlines, Inc. and 

governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq.

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
2 

(“ERISA”). Life insurance under the Plan is funded by two group life insurance policies issued 

by Securian Life Insurance Company to United Airlines as Policyholder. Robert J. Hilton (the 

“Decedent”) obtained life insurance coverage under the Plan by virtue of his employment with 

United Airlines. A copy of the Certificates of Insurance for the group policies is attached as 

Group Exhibit C. 

3. The Estate initiated this action against Securian and Obuchowski on July 1, 2020 

by filing its Petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Probate 

Division. On July 1, 2020, Securian received a copy of the Petition by email transmission from 

counsel for the Estate. Securian has not been properly served with the Petition. To prevent 

delay of this action and to save the cost of service of summons by judicial process consistent 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, Securian hereby voluntarily accepts service of the Petition effective July 

1, 2020, the date Securian received a copy of the filed Petition. Based on the date of Securian’s 

voluntary acceptance of service of the Petition, Securian is required to file its Notice of Removal 

on or before July 31, 2020. Because Notice of Removal has been filed on or before July 31, 

2020, Securian’s Notice of Removal is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 and §1446. 

4. Securian removes this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 et seq. based on federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. The United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is the appropriate venue for removal of this action from the 

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Probate Division. 

5. The Estate’s claims to recover ERISA life insurance benefits and declare rights to 

Plan benefits in the Petition, and this civil action, are removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 

28 U.S.C. §1441(c) because the Estate’s claim against Securian for payment of life insurance 

benefits under the ERISA Plan is governed by ERISA §502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
3 

The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §1002(1). 

Section 502(a)(1)(B) completely preempts the claim asserted against Securian in the Petition. 

6. Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA allows a beneficiary to bring a civil action “to 

recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of 

the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” The Estate alleges 

entitlement to payment of life insurance benefits from Securian under the Plan and seeks to 

declare rights to benefits under the Plan. The Estate alleges that the Estate is the “rightful owner 

of the Policies” and that Securian has failed to release Plan benefits to the Estate, and seeks an 

Order requiring Securian to pay Plan benefits. (Ex. B, Petition, ¶¶ 20-23, Wherefore clauses). 

The Estate’s claims for payment of ERISA Plan benefits and to declare rights to Plan benefits 

fall within ERISA §502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B). 

7. Section 502(a)(1)(B) completely preempts any state law claim asserted in the 

Petition. Complete preemption under ERISA §502(a) has such “extraordinary pre-emptive 

power” that it converts certain state law claims into ERISA claims, and confers federal 

jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims under ERISA. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 

209 (2004) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1987)). 

“‘[C]auses of action within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of § 502(a) [are] 

removable to federal court.’” Id. (quoting Taylor, 481 U.S. at 66). See also Gardner v. 

Heartland Indus. Partners, LP, 715 F.3d 609, 613 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[W]hen a state-law claim by 

its nature falls within the scope of ERISA §1132(a)(1)(B), two consequences follow: first, the 

claim is deemed to be a federal claim (albeit an invalid one) for purposes of federal-question 

jurisdiction and thus removal; and second, the claim is preempted.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
4 

 8. The Estate’s claims for payment of ERISA plan benefits and a declaration of a 

rights against Securian in the Petition is removable under 28 U.S.C. §1441(c). 28 U.S.C. 

§1441(c) provides, “(1) If a civil action includes—(A) a claim arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 1331 of this title), and (B) a 

claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has 

been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be 

removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B).” The claim is 

removable even though the pleading is in the form of a “petition” rather than a complaint. See 

Scianna v. Furlong, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1000, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (holding that a petition seeking 

an order to require payment of ERISA benefits filed in a tort action is removable under 28 U.S.C. 

§1441(c) because “[t]he title of the pleading does not change the fact that [claimant] is seeking 

first to compel [the Plan] to pay benefits”). 

9. The Estate’s claim for payment of ERISA Plan benefits does not come within the 

“probate exception” to federal jurisdiction. The claim is distinct from any existing matters 

pertaining to estate administration. The claim for payment of ERISA Plan benefits involves 

different legal rights and obligations than any unrelated matters of estate administration. In 

addition, the judgment sought – payment of Plan benefits – would increase the estate’s assets and 

would not reallocate the estate’s assets or otherwise interfere with the probate court’s 

administration of the estate. See Gustafson v. zumBrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(“The suit, though based ultimately on the will, is not within the probate exception to federal 

jurisdiction. The judgment sought would just add assets to the decedent’s estate; it would not 

reallocate the estate’s assets among contending claimants or otherwise interfere with the probate 

court’s control over and administration of the estate.”); Singer v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5 

Co., 335 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1031 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (holding probate exception does not apply 

where judgment sought simply adds assets to the estate); Wolfram v. Wolfram, 78 F. Supp. 3d 

758, 764 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Federal courts may also take jurisdiction over claims that would add 

assets to an estate currently undergoing probate.”) (citing Gustafson, 546 F.3d at 400). See also

Jones v. Brennan, 465 F.3d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 2006) (The “probate exception” to federal courts’ 

jurisdiction “reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the 

administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to 

dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal 

courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal 

jurisdiction.”) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-312 (2006)).1

10. Because the Estate’s claim for ERISA Plan benefits is removable within the 

Court’s federal question jurisdiction under ERISA §502(a), any remaining unrelated probate 

matters, to the extent they exist, are also removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(c). 28 U.S.C. 

§1441(c)(2) specifies that following removal, “the district court shall sever from the action all 

claims described in paragraph 1(B) [claims not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of 

the district court or that have been made nonremovable by statute] and shall remand the severed 

claims to the State court from which the action was removed.” While the federal question 

ERISA claim remains within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court “shall” sever 

and remand any remaining unrelated probate matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(c)(2). 

11. Because there is federal question jurisdiction over the Estate’s claim against 

Securian for payment of Plan benefits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 based on ERISA §502(a) and 

the doctrine of complete preemption, Securian is entitled to removal of the entire action and the 

                                                            

 1 Indeed, the Petition acknowledges that the potential beneficiaries of the Plan are Obuchowski and the 

decedent’s children, not the Estate. (Ex. B, Petition, ¶¶ 5-11). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
6 

Petition from state court to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(c). See also Bergquist v. 

Mann Bracken, LLP, 592 F.3d 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Federal law does not permit a district 

judge to remand the complete litigation just because portions belong in state court. Judges must 

exercise the jurisdiction they have been given and may not adopt common-law rules that prefer 

state over federal adjudication of claims that are within the jurisdiction defined by Congress.”). 

12. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter based on federal question 

jurisdiction, and therefore the action is properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1331, 28 U.S.C. §1441, and 28 U.S.C. §1446. A copy of the Notice of Filing Notice of 

Removal to be filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Probate 

Division is attached as Exhibit D. 

 WHEREFORE, Removing Party SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. requests 

removal of the above titled action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County 

Department, Probate Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Jacqueline J. Herring (Ill. Bar 6282246) By: /s/ Jacqueline J. Herring

SMITH | VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES Attorney for Removing Party/Defendant, 

180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3130 Securian Financial Group, Inc. 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

P 312.541.0300 | F 312.541.0933 

jackie.herring@svs-law.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 9, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

above Court using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that a paper copy of the electronically 

filed document was served on the individuals addressed below via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at 

180 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. 

Brandon E. Peck 

Madison R. Clark 

Peck Ritchey, LLC 

105 W. Adams St., 31st Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

kpeck@peckritchey.com 

Kristin N. Suchy 

Griffin Williams LLP 

21 N. Fourth Street 

Geneva, Illinois 60134 

ksuchy@gwllplaw.com 

/s/ Jacqueline J. Herring 

SMITH | VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES

 180 North LaSalle St. Suite 3130 

 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

 P 312.541.0300 | F 312.541.0933 

 jackie.herring@svs-law.com 

Illinois Bar No. 6282246 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04022 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7