Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000447.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:00:34+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Patchell v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
Patchell v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended "Class Action and ERISA Complaint." (ECF No. 27.) Although Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) or Memorandum of Law in Support thereof (ECF No. 28), the deadline for Plaintiffs' response-March 2, 2018-has passed and, thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, this Court will GRANT Defendants' Motion.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because Plaintiffs' claims are brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On February 9, 2018, Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended "Class Action and ERISA Complaint" and an accompanying Memorandum of Law in support thereof. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) To date Plaintiffs' have neither responded to nor moved for an extension of the deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended "Class Action and ERISA Complaint."
"To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)); see also Borough of Moosic v. Darwin Nat. Assur. Co., 556 Fed.Appx. 92, 95 (3d Cir. 2014) ("Generally, a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings.") (internal citations omitted).
"However, an exception to the general rule is that a 'document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint' may be considered 'without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.'" Schmidt, 770 F.3d at 249 (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997)) (emphasis in original); see also Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 353 (3d Cir. 2016) (stating that a court deciding a 12(b)(6) motion may consider "documents] integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint") (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1391
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.