Opinion
No. C-07-00262 RMW.
August 10, 2007
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT [Re Docket No. 34]
On June 13, 2007 the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to remand on the basis that plaintiff's claims arise out of the administration of an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. and, therefore, were preempted by ERISA. See Clorox Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 779 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1985) (ERISA preempts claims that arise out of the administration of a covered plan, where a plaintiff claims that the employer wrongfully and maliciously denied employment benefits.).
Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted based on new facts since the court's order issued. Specifically, he submits that his long-term benefits were recently granted and, therefore, long-term benefits are no longer an issue in the action. In addition, plaintiff claims that he had previously "agreed with defendant, via its agent Unum Provident, to give up his rights to bring an ERISA claim until reassessment of his claim was completed." See Pl.'s Req. at 2:5-7; 14-17; Decl. Rehan Sheikh Supp. Req., Ex. J. Plaintiff intends to amend his complaint to remove ERISA claims for benefits or retaliation based on long-term disability benefits.
Plaintiff indicates that the initial denial of his long-term disability benefits was reassessed by Unum Provident, the benefits provider, as part of a reassessment of denials pursuant to insurance regulations. Unum Provident offered plaintiff, and plaintiff accepted, the opportunity to participate in the reassessment process in February 2005. Plaintiff agreed not to file a lawsuit until the reassessment was completed.
Plaintiff submits that his remaining claims do not implicate ERISA. Plaintiff represents that his remaining claims involve defendant's administration of his state short-term disability benefits and workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff indicates that, upon appeal with the state agency, a judge determined that plaintiff was eligible for short-term disability benefits. Further, his claim for worker's compensation benefits is pending before the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board. In addition, he will be asserting a discrimination claim based on events that took place during the course of his employment with defendant prior to the termination of his benefits and not based on the termination of his benefits.
A motion for reconsideration may be based on "[t]he emergence of new material facts" occurring after the time the order was issued. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2). Here, plaintiff informs the court that his long-term disability benefits have since been paid. However, the fact that plaintiff's longterm disability benefits have since been paid does not necessarily mean that there can be no ERISA preemption, for example, if the alleged discriminatory conduct nevertheless involves the administration of benefits under an ERISA plan. Here, the court's June 13, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was based on plaintiff's current operative complaint, which alleges discrimination stemming from the administration of his long-term disability benefits pursuant to an ERISA plan. Although plaintiff submits that he intends to file an amended complaint, no amended complaint (or motion for leave to file an amended complaint) has been filed. As such, the court does not find a motion for reconsideration of the June 13, 2007 Order proper.
Nevertheless, the court agrees that plaintiff's claims, if amended as represented in his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, might not be preempted by ERISA. See Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1405 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that no ERISA preemption exists when the loss of benefits are a consequence of, and not a motivating factor behind, the termination of benefits). In particular, plaintiff represents that his remaining claims involve only state-based benefits and purported discrimination based on events not involving the administration of his long-term benefits claim. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant does not object to plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be filed by August 31, 2007.
Plaintiff indicates in his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration that he intends to file an amended complaint either by stipulation or through leave of court.