Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180305_0000532.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:31:14+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Purvis v. The Lutheran Homes of South Carolina, Inc.
Purvis v. The Lutheran Homes of South Carolina, Inc.
The Lutheran Homes of South Carolina, Inc., Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the aforementioned state law claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. (ECF No. 30 at 1-2.) Alternatively, Defendant moves the court to amend its Order entered on March 30, 2017 (the “March Order, ” ECF No. 29), pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 37.) For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Rule 54(b) Motion to Amend.
The court observes that “[i]n determining whether ERISA preempts a plaintiff's state law claims, the primary consideration  requires applying the test the Fourth Circuit has adopted for determining whether ERISA completely preempts a state law claim.” Hendrix v. Res. Real Estate Mgmt., Inc., 170 F.Supp.3d 879, 887 (D.S.C. 2016) (citing Sonoco Prod. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366, 372 (4th Cir. 2003) (adopting the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's test for determining ERISA preemption); Tucci v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 446 F.Supp.2d 473 (D.S.C. 2006) (considering Sonoco in the context of a long term disability insurance plan)). “[T]he test sets forth three requirements to establish complete preemption:” (1) the plaintiff must have standing under [ERISA] § 502(a) to pursue its claim; (2) its claim must fall within the scope of an ERISA provision that [it] can enforce via § 502(a); and (3) the claim must not be capable of resolution without an interpretation of the contract governed by federal law, i.e., an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. Id. (quoting Sonoco, 338 F.3d at 372).
Upon review, the court observes that neither Defendant (ECF No. 17-1 at 33) nor the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24 at 10-11) addressed these factors before reaching the conclusion that Plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. Without these factors having been addressed by the movant, the court is not persuaded that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue. As a result, the court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of ERISA preemption as to Plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract, breach of contract/detrimental reliance and bad faith failure to pay insurance without prejudice.
This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction since they were “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that . . . it form[s] part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even though it dismissed the federal claims against Defendant, the court has the authority to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims that were closely related to the original claims. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 502
 § 502
 § 1367