Schaum v. Honeywell Retiree Medical Plan Number 507

Full title: Diana Lyn Schaum, Plaintiff, v. Honeywell Retiree Medical Plan Number 507…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Dec 19, 2005

No. CIV-04-2290-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 2005)

Opinion

No. CIV-04-2290-PHX-MHM.

December 19, 2005

ORDER

MARY MURGUIA, District Judge

Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Carestaf's Complaint in Intervention, (Dkt. #87). After reviewing the motion, the Court issues the following Order.

I. Background

Intervenor Carestaf of Arizona ("Intervenor") has asserted a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Accompanying this claim, Intervenor has asserted the following state law causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) fraud; and (4) negligent misrepresentation.

Defendant Honeywell Retiree Medical Plan Number 507 ("Defendant") moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). FED.R.CIV.PRO. In bringing its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant relies on an extraneous document to support its position. Specifically, Defendant directs the Court's attention to Honeywell's 2001 Retiree Medical Plan Number 507 ("the Plan"). Defendant repeatedly cites to this document as prohibiting the assignment of Plaintiff's rights under the Plan to Intervenor, thus demonstrating that the Intervenor lacks standing to assert its ERISA claim. Defendant contends that because this document is an integral document summarizing the key terms of Defendant's Plan, and because Intervenor's Complaint relies and incorporates the Plan terms, by reference, this Court may consider the Plan document in support of its Motion to Dismiss without converting the Plan's motion into a motion for summary judgment. See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9^th Cir. 1998) (holding that defendant's attachment of extrinsic document to motion to dismiss did not convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment where the attached document was integral to the plaintiff's claims and the authenticity was not disputed).

Intervenor; however, takes issue with the authenticity of the Plan document relied on by Defendant. Specifically, Intervenor contends that the Plan document at issue may not be the document that Honeywell relied on in reducing Plaintiff's skilled nursing care from 24 hours to 2 hours per day. Intervenor argues that the Plan relied on by Defendant may govern only the year of 2001 and that there is evidence suggesting that a more recent plan exists, such as a 2003 plan. Intervenor contends that this position is supported by inconsistencies between the 2001 Plan and references by the Plan Administrator to specific page numbers of the Plan that do not contain the information or term referenced. In short, Intervenor disputes the authenticity of the 2001 Plan document relied on by Defendant in asserting its Motion to Dismiss and requests that Defendant's Motion be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

II. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides in pertinent part:

If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Although, as mentioned above, there are exceptions to the conversion of motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment, no such exception applies in this case. See Parrino., 146 F.3d at 706 (9^th Cir. 1998). Assuming even that the extrinsic 2001 Plan document relied upon by Plaintiff is integral to Plaintiff's Complaint, there is still issue with the authenticity of it as demonstrated by the concern raised by Intervenor. As such, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be treated as a motion for summary judgment and the Parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to Defendant's Rule 56 motion with respect to the issues raised.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED converting Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. #87) into a motion for summary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will be given 20 days from the date of this Order to perform any necessary discovery and submit material pertinent to Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment.