Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-3076-L.
July 13, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
By Order of Reference entered March 5, 2004, the United States District Court referred "Defendants' F.R.CIV.P. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint," filed March 3, 2004, to the United States Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for proposed findings and recommendations for disposition of the motion. The Court has determined that a hearing is not required. The Court has considered "Defendants' F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint," "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint," and "Defendants' Reply in Support of their F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint."
I.
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's state law causes of action on the ground that ERISA preempts them. Additionally, Defendants request that the Court (1) dismiss Plaintiff's claim for "Equitable Relief" under ERISA because such relief is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case and (2) strike Plaintiff's jury demand Finally, Defendants move to strike and dismiss any prayers for relief that are not available under ERISA. Plaintiff responds that he alleged in his complaint that the insurance policy in this case "may" be an ERISA plan, but he is uncertain from the facts whether he has an ERISA claim. Plaintiff asserts that his state law claims are alleged alternatively to his ERISA claim. He further contends he may be entitled to "interest" on unpaid benefits under ERISA and that he may be entitled to a jury if the insurance policy is not an ERISA plan.
II.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowrey v. Texas A M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid cause of action when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247. A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1992).
III.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff's state law claims should be dismissed because they are preempted by ERISA. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that he pled his state law claims as an alternative to his ERISA claim and they should not be dismissed because the insurance policy in question may not be an ERISA plan.
The rights, regulations, and remedies created by ERISA "supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may . . . relate to any employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). This language is "deliberately expansive," and is designed to make the regulation of employee benefit plans an exclusively federal concern. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 45 (1987). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pled facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Id.; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff does not, as he claims in his response, allege that he "may" be a participant in an ERISA plan. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that he is a participant of an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(1) (7) and is entitled to bring this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(A). Plaintiff also alleges state law claims arising out of and incorporating the same facts as his ERISA claims. Taking these allegation as true for purposes of this motion, this Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiff's only remedies are those provided by ERISA. In other words, his state law causes of action are preempted or barred. Plaintiff's contention that he brings the state law claims alternatively fails. If the insurance policy does not qualify as an ERISA plan, then federal question jurisdiction is lacking. In that case, Plaintiff's state law causes of action would be dismissed because there is no diversity jurisdiction.
The Court does not reach the question whether the Plaintiff actually is a participant in an employee welfare benefit plan because the Court must take the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Texas. Fiser BPI, Inc. is a Texas corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas and has its principal place of business in Boerne, Texas. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1.03 and 1.08.)
RECOMMENDATION
Defendants' motion to strike and dismiss, filed March 3, 2004, should be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's causes of action for "Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing," "Article 21.21 Violations," Article 21.21-2 Violations," "DPT Violation," and his requests for relief pursuant to those causes of action should be dismissed without prejudice. His jury demand should be stricken. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief under ERISA should be denied without prejudice because the relief available under ERISA will depend upon the facts that develop at trial.