3. On or about July 7, 2016, Defendants removed the instant Action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on the grounds that the Plan at issue was an employee benefit Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and that ERISA completely preempted any state law claims. (See Docket No. 1).

PageID: 1443 - 9 - benefits is guided by Congress’s intent that ERISA “protect ... the interests of participants in employee benefit plans (29 U.S.C. § 1001(b)), and that the assignment of ERISA claims to providers “serves the interests of patients by increase in their access to care.” North Jersey Brain & Spine, 801 F.3d at 373 (quoting CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., 751 F.3d 165, 179 (3d Cir. 2014)). B. Plaintiffs Sufficiently Plead Standing under the Plans Defendants nonetheless argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue them under the Plans. Relying on MHA, LLC v. Aetna Health, Inc., No. 122984, 2013 WL 705612 (D.N.J. Feb. 25, 2013), Defendants argue that the assignments Plaintiffs allege are insufficient because they purportedly fail to reflect an “unequivocal expression of an intent to transfer” the Subscribers’ rights under the Plan. (Motion at 9-10) (citing MHA, 2013 WL 705612, at *7).

The Plan Sponsor, and Plaintiff’s employer, AutoZone, Inc., maintained an employee welfare benefit plan providing long term disability benefits to eligible employees and funded those benefits through a Group Insurance Policy issued to it by Aetna Life Insurance Company. The AutoZone Long Term Disability Plan constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Case 2:16-cv-06512-GJP Document 4-2 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 9 2 II.

13 Congress enacted ERISA to “‘protect . . . the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries’ by setting out substantive regulatory requirements for employee benefit plans and to ‘provid[e] for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.’” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b)). Case 3:08-cv-01289-PCD Document 18 Filed 09/29/08 Page 30 of 43 - 23 - (internal quotation omitted).

Case 3:17-cv-00309-DJH-CHL Document 15-2 Filed 07/06/17 Page 131 of 131 PageID #: 200 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION ORDER Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna” or “Defendant”) filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and to Strike Demand for Jury Trial. Having reviewed the motion and all pleadings submitted in connection therewith, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff cannot maintain her claims for common law breach of contract, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and promissory estoppel because they are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., as amended (“ERISA”). Her demand for a trial by jury are similarly foreclosed.

1] The plaintiff, Margaret Myklebust (the "plaintiff"), commenced the instant action against the defendants, McDermott, Inc. ("McDermott") and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. ("MetLife") seeking a declaration from this Court that she is entitled to recover certain employer-sponsored thrift plan and life insurance benefits attributable to the decedent, John D. Drayton, as his surviving spouse. The plaintiff has invoked this Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq ("ERISA"). Case 5:17-cv-00697-SMH-MLH Document 8-2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 132 Thereafter, MetLife filed a Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint in Interpleader against Olivia Tallet ("Tallet"), the decedent's putative spouse.

Participating employers, providing a self-funded prescription drug plan, make deposits into a trust fund (like the one at bar), for the subsequent payment of employees' drug claims. In response to growing concern over the improper administration and management of employee benefit plans, and to regulate the conduct of plan employers, administrators, and/or “fiduciaries,” Congress enacted ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(a)-(b). See, e.g., Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 112 (1989) (“ERISA was passed by Congress in 1974 to safeguard employees from the abuse and mismanagement of funds that had been accumulated to finance various types of employee benefits.”)

Through January 2017, Horizon had underpaid Plaintiffs by more than $125 million for out-of-network treatment Plaintiffs have provided to Horizon Subscribers, and the underpayments continue to grow. Horizon’s conduct violates its obligations under Employee Retirement Income Security Act 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”), and corresponding state law duties. Even worse, Horizon has made numerous false and misleading statements designed to harm Plaintiffs’ business.

[Document 106, page 4] 11. Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint in this Court on May 20, 2009, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were liable to him as co-fiduciaries for violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq., and its associated regulations. [Document 1] 12.

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.