From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Damiano v. Orion Refining Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Feb 7, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2959, SECTION "N" (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2003)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2959, SECTION "N"

February 7, 2003


ORDER AND REASONS


Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed by defendant, Orion Refining Corporation ("Orion"). For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Orion fired its employee, Anthony Damiano, after he allegedly failed a random drug screen test. Damiano and his wife brought this wrongful termination suit, alleging that Orion failed to conduct the test correctly, failed to provide a certified operator to conduct the test, failed provide Damiano with the test results, and failed to establish an official limit for drugs and/or alcohol.

Orion now moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Diversity of citizenship is the sole basis for jurisdiction stated in the complaint. According to Orion, no diversity of citizenship exists because Orion, like the plaintiffs, is a citizen of Louisiana. See Parsons v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., 2001 WL 604172, *1 (E.D. La. 2001) (Vance, J.) ("Orion has submitted evidence demonstrating that its principal place of business is in New Sarpy, Louisiana. Therefore, Orion Refining has Louisiana citizenship for diversity purposes.").

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, *916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 993 (2001). The Court "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum." Id.

Plaintiffs do not contest Orion's assertion that its principal place of business is in Louisiana, thereby precluding the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Instead, plaintiffs now argue that federal question jurisdiction exists because their damages include loss of retirement benefits and 401k participation, which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal statute. ERISA preempts state laws relating to employee benefit plans covered by ERISA. Zewe v. Law Firm of Adams Reese, 852 F. Supp. 516, 518 (E.D. La. 1993). However, where "the loss of benefits is merely an element in damages related to a claim for wrongful discharge," preemption is not invoked, and the action does not "arise under" ERISA for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. Rozzell v. Security Services, Inc., 38 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Zewe, 852 F. Supp. at 518-19 ("In the case of a claim for wrongful termination, no ERISA preemption occurs when the loss of pension benefits was a `mere consequence of, but not a motivating factor behind, a termination of employment.'") (quoting Rose v. Intelogic Trace, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 1328, 1330 (W.D. Tex. 1987)); Maldonado v. J.M. Petroleum Corp., 827 F. Supp. 1285, 1287 (S.D. Tex. 1993) ("Federal jurisdiction attaches, with attendant preemption, where a worker claims the loss of pension benefits motivated the termination or claims something that is derived from the terms or administration of the plan. . . . [Where] loss of pension benefits was a mere consequence of [plaintiff's] firing, . . . ERISA does not preempt his claim.").

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").

Plaintiffs' complaint does not mention ERISA. It does not contain an allegation or suggestion that Orion's motive in terminating Damiano's employment was to avoid payment of benefits; nor does it assert any cause of action that is based upon the provisions of an employee benefit plan. Rather, as in Rozzell, Zewe, and Maldonado, plaintiffs' loss of benefits was a mere consequence of the discharge. Plaintiffs' claims, therefore, do not "arise under" ERISA and are not sufficiently "related to" an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan to invoke ERISA preemption. This Court is without jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is GRANTED.


Summaries of

Damiano v. Orion Refining Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Feb 7, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2959, SECTION "N" (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2003)
Case details for

Damiano v. Orion Refining Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JODY DAMIANO, ET AL. v. ORION REFINING CORPORATION

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Feb 7, 2003

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2959, SECTION "N" (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2003)