Beverly A. Richardson v. Aetna Health of California Inc., et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

C.D. Cal.March 9, 2017

R E E D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS Kurt C. Peterson (SBN 83941) kpeterson@reedsmith.com Kenneth N. Smersfelt (SBN 166764) ksmersfelt@reedsmith.com Kevin C. Kroll (SBN 301532) kkroll@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 213 457 8000 Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 Attorneys for Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Strategic Resource Company) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEVERLY A. RICHARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, STRATEGIC RESOURCE COMPANY (SRC), AN AETNA COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 8:17-cv-0377 JVS (JCGx) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Date: April 17, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 10C Compl. Filed: January 23, 2017 Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC Notice of Removal Filed: March 2, 2017 [Filed concurrently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities and [Proposed] Order] Hon. James V. Selna Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:89 R E E D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 1 – NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 17, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 10C of the above-entitled Court, located at 411 West 4th Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516, defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Strategic Resource Company) (“ALIC”) will and hereby do move to dismiss plaintiff Beverly Richardson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Each of Plaintiff’s claims fail because it is premised on an employee benefit plan (“Plan”) subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et. seq. (“ERISA”). ERISA preempts all state law claims that seek benefits under covered plans. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1144 (ERISA §§ 502, 514). Plaintiff’s claims seek redress pursuant to an ERISA-governed plan. Therefore, the Court should dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff cannot cure these deficiencies. For this reason, the Court should dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently herewith, as well as the papers, pleadings, and other documents on file in this action, and such other and further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing. Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:90 R E E D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 2 – NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on February 27, 2017. DATED: March 9, 2017. REED SMITH LLP By:/s/ Kevin C. Kroll Kenneth N. Smersfelt Kevin C. Kroll Attorneys for Defendant Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6 Filed 03/09/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e Kurt C. Peterson (SBN 83941) kpeterson@reedsmith.com Kenneth N. Smersfelt (SBN 166764) ksmersfelt@reedsmith.com Kevin C. Kroll (SBN 301532) kkroll@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 213 457 8000 Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 Attorneys for Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Strategic Resource Company) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEVERLY A. RICHARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, STRATEGIC RESOURCE COMPANY (SRC), AN AETNA COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 8:17-cv-0377 JVS (JCGx) DEFENDANT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND STRATEGIC RESOURCE COMPANY) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Date: April 17, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 10C Compl. Filed: January 23, 2017 Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC Notice of Removal Filed: March 2, 2017 [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion and [Proposed] Order] Hon. James V. Selna Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – i – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................ 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................. 2 A. Legal Standard ........................................................................................... 2 B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims With Prejudice Because They Are ERISA Preempted ....................................................... 3 1. Plaintiff’s Claim Are Completely Preempted Under Section 502 ...................................................................................... 4 2. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Also Preempted Under Section 514 .................................................................................................... 5 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 7 Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – ii – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004)............................................................................................... 3, 4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)................................................................................................... 3 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................... 2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)................................................................................................... 3 Cal. Div. of Labor Stds. Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997)................................................................................................... 6 CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011)................................................................................................... 5 Cleghorn, 408 F.3d at 1226–27 .................................................................................................. 6 Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 3 Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................... 3 Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990)................................................................................................... 6 Kennedy v. Unumprovident Corp., 50 Fed. Appx. 354, 2002 WL 31474243 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................... 6 Ky. Ass’n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329 (2003)................................................................................................... 4 Marin General Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................... 4 Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – iii – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) ..................................................................................................... 4 New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995)................................................................................................... 6 Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) ................................................................................................. 4, 6 In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 3 Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. DiGregorio, 811 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................... 5 Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) ..................................................................................... 3 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 2 Statutes 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a) .................................................................................................... 3, 5 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) .................................................................................................... 5 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) .................................................................................................... 5 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) ........................................................................................................ 6 Other Authorities Croskey, Heeseman, Ehrlich, and Klee, CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: INSURANCE LITIGATION, Chapter 6F-D ¶ 6:1723 (TRG 2016) .................................. 5 Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 1 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This is a dispute regarding the premiums paid for an employer-sponsored health benefit plan (“Plan”) governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et. seq (“ERISA”). Specifically, Plaintiff Beverly Richardson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Strategic Resource Company) (“ALIC”) accepted premiums under the Plan “even though that insurance coverage was not available.”1 See Compl., ¶¶ 1, 10-17. Each of Plaintiff’s claims, however, is subject to dismissal as a matter of law because ERISA’s comprehensive federal regulatory scheme provides exclusive relief under the facts alleged, and therefore, each of Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by ERISA. For this reason, ALIC respectfully requests this Court dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a participant in an employee benefit plan (the “Plan”) offered by her employer, 24 Seven Recruiting, Inc. Compl., ¶ 10. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that 1 On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in state court, in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, entitled Richardson v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC. On March 2, 2017, ALIC removed the case to federal court in the Central District of California on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by ERISA and that diversity jurisdiction is proper. Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 2 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e she enrolled online in a series of benefits offered through her employer and administered by ALIC, including an Aetna short term disability plan. Compl., ¶¶ 10- 11. Plaintiff alleges that the short term disability plan did not afford coverage to her, and Plaintiff further alleges that ALIC knew or should have known this. Compl, ¶¶ 12-16. According to Plaintiff, ALIC’s business act or practice under the Plan violates California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and that she “has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.” Compl., ¶ 17. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts these state law claims against ALIC: (1) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”); and (2) unjust enrichment. III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Legal Standard A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted if, when taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper when there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). While facts alleged in a complaint must be accepted, legal conclusions need not be. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Indeed, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 3 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e masquerading as factual conclusions will not defeat a motion to dismiss. Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may also incorporate by reference documents outside the pleadings if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claims. Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012); In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[w]hen deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the complaint and documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.”). As the Supreme Court stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’ . . . .” Id. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims With Prejudice Because They Are ERISA Preempted ERISA’s purpose is “to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.”2 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (“Davila”). ERISA establishes “standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans” and provides “appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44 (1987), 2 ERISA applies to any “employee benefit plan” that is “established or maintained (1) by any employer engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce; or (2) by any employee organization or organizations representing employees engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce; or (3) by both.” See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a). Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 4 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e overruled in part on other grounds in Ky. Ass’n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329, 341 (2003). To achieve this goal, ERISA’s preemption provisions are “deliberately expansive” and designed to “establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern.” Id. at 45–46 (internal quotation and citation omitted) (emphasis added); Davila, 542 U.S. at 208. There are two components to ERISA’s powerful preemptive force: one under Section 502 (complete preemption) and one under Section 514 (conflict preemption). Each provision provides a separate ground for preemption in this case and, consequently, dismissal of the Complaint. 1. Plaintiff’s Claim Are Completely Preempted Under Section 502 Section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), creates an enforcement scheme that completely preempts state-law claims. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 64–66 (1987). Pursuant to ERISA’s broad preemptive power, the Supreme Court held that “the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA § 502(a) [must] be the exclusive vehicle for actions by ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits.” Davila, 542 U.S. at 208. Section 502(a) “confers exclusive federal jurisdiction in certain instances where Congress intended the scope of a federal law to be so broad as to entirely replace any state-law claim.” Marin General Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 2009). Specifically, ERISA § 502(a)(3) expressly authorizes a plan participant to sue to enjoin violations of ERISA or the terms of the plan or “for other appropriate equitable relief” to redress such violations.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Federal courts Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 5 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e have “exclusive jurisdiction” over civil actions brought under ERISA § 502(a)(3). 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1); Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. DiGregorio, 811 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that suit falling within section 502(a)(3) could “be heard only in federal court”). The equitable relief available to plan participants includes “those categories of relief that traditionally speaking (i.e. prior to the merger of law and equity) were typically available in equity,” including injunctions and restitution. Croskey, Heeseman, Ehrlich, and Klee, CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: INSURANCE LITIGATION, Ch. 6F-D ¶ 6:1723 (TRG 2016) (citing CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 439 (2011)). Here, Plaintiff is a participant of an ERISA-governed Plan. Compl., ¶¶ 10-12; Exhibit A (Declaration of Robert M. Mayer In Support Of Notice Of Removal, ¶ 3 (confirming “the Plan is an employer-established group welfare benefits plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.”)); 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a) (ERISA applies to any “employee benefit plan” that is “established or maintained by . . . any employer engaged in commerce . . . .”). Moreover, Plaintiff ultimately seeks redress pursuant to the Plan in the form of a “declaration,” an “order enjoining Aetna,” “restitution,” and “attorneys’ fees” – all ERISA remedies. Compl., ¶ 41 (“Relief Requested”). Under these facts, Plaintiff was required to bring a claim under Section 502(a)(3) in federal court to recover the relief prayed for in the Complaint. 2. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Also Preempted Under Section 514 ERISA Section 514(a) (“Section 514”) provides that ERISA shall “supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA. 29 U.SC. § 1144(a) (emphasis added). A state law Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 6 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e “relates to” an employee benefit plan if it has either “a connection with” or a “reference to” the plan. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995); Cal. Div. of Labor Stds. Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 324 (1997). The phrase “relate to” is interpreted broadly to preempt state laws, “even if the law is not specifically designed to affect [ERISA] plans, or the effect is only indirect.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 139 (1990) (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 47). State law UCL claims are subject to conflict preemption under Section 514. See Kennedy v. Unumprovident Corp., 50 Fed. Appx. 354, 2002 WL 31474243, at **2 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of UCL claim because “any individual claim that [plaintiff] would have under the UCL is preempted by ERISA”); see also Cleghorn, 408 F.3d at 1226–27 (similarly holding UCL claim was preempted under ERISA Section 502 and affirming dismissal of the complaint). Here, each of Plaintiff’s state law claims clearly “relates to” an ERISA- governed Plan. Each of Plaintiff’s claims, as alleged in the Complaint, is premised on an ERISA Plan. Compl., ¶¶ 11-12 (alleging Plaintiff was enrolled in an “Aetna Short Term Disability Plan”); id. at ¶¶ 27–35 (First Cause of Action, alleging an illegal business act or practice for “accepting premiums for Short Term Disability coverage”); id. at ¶¶ 36–40 (Second Cause of Action, alleging unjust enrichment because of Defendant’s “business act or practice of accepting premiums for Short Term Disability coverage”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to conflict preemption under Section 514(a) and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 7 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s two state law claims relate to an ERISA Plan and are therefore preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, ALIC respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and dismiss the case with prejudice. DATED: March 9, 2017. REED SMITH LLP By/s/ Kevin C. Kroll Kenneth N. Smersfelt Kevin C. Kroll Attorneys for Defendant Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:102 EXHIBIT A Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 03/09/17 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:103 Case 8:17-cv-00377 Document 1-2 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:75Case 8:17-cv-00377 JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 3 09/17 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:104 Case 8:17-cv-00377 Document 1-2 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:76Case 8:17-cv-00377 JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 3 09/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:105 Case 8:17-cv-00377 Document 1-2 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:77Case 8:17-cv-00377 JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 3 09/17 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:106 Case 8:17-cv-00377 Document 1-2 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:78Case 8:17-cv-00377 JVS-JCG Document 6-1 Filed 3 09/17 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:107 R E E D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEVERLY A. RICHARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, STRATEGIC RESOURCE COMPANY (SRC), AN AETNA COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 8:17-cv-0377 JVS (JCGx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND STRATEGIC RESOURCE COMPANY) MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 17, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 10C Compl. Filed: January 23, 2017 Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC Notice of Removal Filed: March 2, 2017 [Lodged concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and [Proposed] Order] Hon. James V. Selna Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-2 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:108 R E E D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 1 – [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company’s (erroneously sued as Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Strategic Resource Company) (“ALIC”) Motion to Dismiss plaintiff Beverly Richardson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) came on for hearing on April 17, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 10C of the above-entitled Court, located at 411 West 4th Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516, the Honorable James V. Selna, presiding. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the papers, and the arguments of counsel, and with GOOD CAUSE shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ALIC’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Each of Plaintiff’s state law claims is preempted by ERISA. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _______________________ _________________________ Honorable James V. Selna District Court Judge Case 8:17-cv-00377-JVS-JCG Document 6-2 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:109