NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CATHERINE MAZZOLA, M.D., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AETNA INC., et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-2278 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Catherine

Mazzola (“Plaintiff”) [docket entry no. 4]. Defendants Aetna Inc., and Aetna Life Insurance

Company (collectively “Aetna” or “Defendants”) have opposed the motion. The Court has

considered the papers submitted by the parties and opts to rule on the motion without oral

argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action. 

This action was removed by Defendants by a petition filed April 21, 2011. Defendants

claim that this action is removable because it asserts claims arising under ERISA and it therefore

asserts a claim under federal jurisdiction. Aetna Life Insurance Company is the initial claim

administrator for the Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 27 Health and

Welfare Fund (“Fund”). Plaintiffs are healthcare providers who, though not parties to provider

Case 2:11-cv-02278-SRC-MAS Document 23 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 336
agreements with Aetna, nonetheless provided services to individuals covered by the Fund. 

Plaintiffs are neither “participants” or “beneficiaries” as defined under ERISA. In essence,

Plaintiffs allege that Aetna failed to properly reimburse Plaintiffs for services rendered, and have

made claims as third-party beneficiaries.

A party seeking removal to federal court bears the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction. Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 151 (3d Cir. 2009). By its terms,

standing under ERISA is limited to participants and beneficiaries. Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local

464A Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 400. Therefore, the burden is on Defendants

to demonstrate how a claim by Plaintiffs to pursue benefits is cognizable under ERISA such as to

give rise to federal jurisdiction under the “complete preemption doctrine.” Defendants have not

done so. Indeed, neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs’ Complaint articulate a recognizable basis for

Plaintiffs to have status as a third-party beneficiary -- and none is apparent to the Court. 

Moreover, while Defendants might assert that jurisdiction is predicated upon Plaintiffs’ potential

status as assignees of beneficiaries -- there are no allegations which even suggest the extent of

such an assignment and its sufficiency to be a basis for jurisdiction. See Wayne Surgical Ctr. v.

Concentra Preferred Sys., Inc., No. 06-928 (HAA), 2007 WL 2416428, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 20,

2007) (to find that a provider has standing to bring an ERISA § 502 claim for benefits against a

patient’s health insurance carrier based on an assignment of benefits, the scope of the assignment

must be plead). Defendants’ failure to provide any factual development of the alleged

assignment is insufficient to grant this Court federal jurisdiction over this matter. 

For these reasons,

IT IS on this 3 day of August, 2011, rd

2

Case 2:11-cv-02278-SRC-MAS Document 23 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 337
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for remand [docket entry no. 4] be and hereby is

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that this case be and hereby is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Morris County.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

3

Case 2:11-cv-02278-SRC-MAS Document 23 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 338