Pederson v. Country Life Ins. Co.

Full title: Wayne A. PEDERSON; Luanne M. Pederson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 19, 2001

13 F. App'x 741 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 741 (9th Cir. 2001) Wayne A. PEDERSON; Luanne M. Pederson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE CO.; Country Investors Life Assurance; Country Mutual Insurance Co.; Country Casualty Insurance Co.; Country Preferred Insurance; Northwest Farm Bureau Insurance Co.; CC Services Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 00-15205. D.C. No. CV-99-00526-DWH (PHA). United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 19, 2001

Submitted July 11, 2001. ¹

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Plaintiff brought action in state court, seeking to enforce substantive provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and case was removed to federal court. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, David W. Hagen, J., remanded case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff was an independent contractor and, therefore, not an employee who could sue to enforce ERISA. The Court of Appeals held that district court's order remanding case to the state court from which it was removed was not reviewable by Court of Appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Page 742.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada David W. Hagen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, WARDLAW, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Defendants appeal from the district court's order remanding this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims because plaintiff was an independent contractor, and, therefore, not an employee who could sue to enforce the substantive provisions of ERISA. The district court's decision that plaintiff was an independent contractor was necessary to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Employer Serv. Corp., 188 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir.1999) (refusing to review remand order because the district court's decision was "not apart from the jurisdictional determination"). A district court's order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED.