Opinion ID: 15663
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ordinary Preemption

Text: ERISA section 514(a) provides for the general preemption of any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan regulated by that statute.25 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (emphasis added). Preemption pursuant to section 514(a), however, merely results in the displacement of state law. Because ordinary preemption almost invariably arises as a defense, and thus does not appear on the face of the plaintiff’s wellpleaded complaint, section 514(a) preemption typically cannot serve (7th Cir. 1995) (The difference between complete preemption under § 502(a) and conflict preemption under § 514(a) is important because complete preemption is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule that has jurisdictional consequences.); Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 355 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasizing the importance of the distinction due to the jurisdictional consequences of its application); Warner v. Ford Motor Co., 46 F.3d 531, 535 (6th Cir. 1995) (criticizing the failure to keep complete preemption removal and ordinary preemption doctrine separate and distinct). 25 As this Court has previously noted, section 514(a) was drafted to be deliberately expansive, broadly displacing inconsistent state laws so as to implement Congress’s decision to create a comprehensive, uniform federal scheme for the regulation of employee benefit plans through the enactment of ERISA. Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1329 (5th Cir. 1992). See also id. at 1328-29 (discussing the broad interpretation of the phrase relates to in the context of ordinary ERISA preemption). 20 as the basis for removal jurisdiction.26 As the Supreme Court stated in Taylor, ERISA pre-emption, without more, does not convert a state claim into an action arising under federal law.27 Accordingly, the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief directly related to the implementation and administration of an ERISA plan was an insufficient basis for its holding that the motion triggered complete preemption and, consequently, the court erred in determining that it had removal jurisdiction.