Opinion ID: 688446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal of Action to Federal Court

Text: 6 On appeal, Roberts contends that removal was improper and that the district court erred by not remanding the case to state court. This contention lacks merit. 7 Removal is a question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo. Harris v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins., Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal. Id. (quotations omitted). 8 Removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441. Under this section, a defendant may remove a state court suit to federal court only if the suit could have been brought there originally. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a)-(b); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 9 Federal question jurisdiction exists over actions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Whether an action arises under federal law is governed by the well-plead complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of [the plaintiff's complaint]. Id. A federal defense, including the defense of preemption, may not form the basis of federal jurisdiction, even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue. Id. at 393. 10 The complete preemption doctrine, however, provides an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Id. Under this doctrine, the pre-emptive force of a statute is so extraordinary that it converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule. Id. (quotations omitted); Harris, 26 F.3d at 932; Stikes v. Chevron USA, Inc., 914 F.2d 1265, 167 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2015 (1991). 11 With few exceptions, ERISA preempts all state actions filed by plan participants which relate to an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132; Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 64-66 (1987); Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44-47 (1987); Harris, 26 F.3d at 932. A law 'relates to' an employee benefit plan ... if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan. Shaw v. Delta Airlines, 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983). Congress used the words 'relate to' in [ERISA] in their broad sense. Id. at 98. 12 Here, Roberts's state-law conversion action sought to establish his rights to certain benefits, which were due under the terms of an employee benefits plana and were allegedly converted by the Pension Plan when it honored the IRS's levy. Given these circumstances, removal was proper. See Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 64-66; Harris, 26 F.3d at 932. 13