Opinion ID: 721469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Dismissal of Jass' Claim Against Margulis

Text: 34 With subject matter jurisdiction, the district court had the power to dismiss the claim against Margulis. It did so, however, on the wrong basis. The district court dismissed the claim against Margulis as preempted by ERISA because it relates to a benefit plan. However, the relates to language of ERISA deals with conflict preemption of a state law claim. Here, as we held above, the claim against Margulis is really a federal denial of benefits claim under § 502(a) and not a state law claim. 35 The claim was nonetheless properly dismissed because Jass sued Margulis in an individual capacity and ERISA permits suits to recover benefits only against the Plan as an entity.... Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1324 (9th Cir.1985). See also, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)(2) (Any money judgment under this subchapter against an employee benefit plan shall be enforceable only against the plan as an entity and shall not be enforceable against any other person unless liability against such person is established in his individual capacity under this subchapter.). Therefore, Margulis is the wrong defendant. The appropriate defendant for a denial of benefits claim would be the Plan, which in this case is PruCare. 36