Summary
remanding the plaintiff's negligence claim against a defendant employer to state court because it did not relate to the defendant's ERISA-governed occupational injury insurance policy
Summary of this case from Ortiz v. A.N.P., Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No: SA-04-CA-452-XR
June 9, 2004
ORDER REMANDING CASE
On this date, the Court considered its jurisdiction over this case. Defendants removed this case from state court on May 25, 2004, alleging ERISA preemption as the basis for federal-question removal jurisdiction. The Court concludes that the removal was improper because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore remands the case to state court.
The party removing the case has the burden to establish facts that show federal jurisdiction exists. Wilson v. Repub. Iron Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). "United States District Courts . . . have the responsibility to consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte . . . and to dismiss any action if such jurisdiction is lacking." Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff's petition alleges that, on or about April 26, 2002, he was a passenger in a tractor trailer being driven by Defendant Gabriel Albert Heredia, and that both of them were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiff alleges that "suddenly and without warning, [Heredia] violently drove the tractor trailer across the lanes of Interstate 35 in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, hitting a guardrail and causing the Plaintiff to sustain serious and permanent physical injuries. The incident occurred due to the negligence of Defendants who proximately caused the injuries and damages set out herein." Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and negligence per se against Defendant Heredia, and for negligence and negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, and supervision against the employer Defendants. Plaintiff seeks damages for his physical and emotional injuries, including medical expenses.
Defendants assert that this case is removable because Plaintiff's claims stem from alleged injuries that Plaintiff suffered while employed with Defendant Capache Transportation, Inc., and damages occasioned as a result of such injureis are covered by the Defendant's ERISA plan and the "non-subscriber occupational injury insurance policy," which is an employee benefit plan under ERISA. Thus, Defendants assert that "[t]his Court has jurisdiction of the claim by the injured beneficiary of the Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)." Defendants cite Hemandez v. Jobe Concrete Products, Inc., 282 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2002), in support of this statement. Hemandez states that courts "normally apply a two-part analysis to determine whether a state law claim is preempted under ERISA." Id. 362 n. 3. First, the court examines whether the benefit plan at issue constitutes an ERISA plan, and second, the court determines whether the claims "relate to" the plan. Id. Hemandez dealt only with whether the plan in question was an ERISA plan, since the parties had conceded that the claims related to the plan. Id. The Court noted that although claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress may all "relate to" an ERISA plan, "negligence claims against employers do not relate to ERISA plans." Id. Thus, Hemandez does not support the removal.
Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that an employee's common-law occupational injury claims do not relate to an ERISA plan and thus ERISA does not preempt such claims. Hook v. Morrison Milling Co., 38 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 1994). Courts have consistently held that common-law negligence claims are not preempted by ERISA. See, e.g., Tex. Health Enters., Inc. v. Reece, 44 F.3d 243, 244 (5th Cir. 1994) ("[A]n employee's common law occupational injury claims . . . do not relate to an employer's ERISA plan."); Noyola v. Oasis Car Wash, Inc., 220 F. Supp.2d 638, 643-44 (E.D. Tex. 2002); Lazo v. Inland Sales Co., 925 F. Supp. 463 (N.D. Tex. 1995); McCabe v. Henpil, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Tex. 1995); Wesibrook v. Beverly Enters., 832 F. Supp. 188 (W.D. Tex. 1993); Pyle v. Beverly Enters., 826 F. Supp. 206 (N.D. Tex. 1993); Gibson v. Wyatt Cafeterias, 782 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Tex. 1992); Nunez v. Wyatt Cafeterias, 771 F. Supp. 165, 168 (N.D. Tex. 1991).
Although Defendants argue that ERISA preempts Plaintiff's claims because he seeks medical care and expenses, which would be available under the plan, this same argument was advanced and rejected in Westbrook v. Beverly Enterprises, 832 F. Supp. 188, 190-91 (W.D. Tex. 1993), a case cited by the Fifth Circuit to support its holding in Hook. Thus, even assuming that the plan in question is an ERISA plan, Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by ERISA. The cause of action involves only the employer/employee relationship and not the administrator/beneficiary relationship with the company. The cause of action would exist even if the plan did not exist, and is thus totally independent from the existence and administration of the ERISA plan.
Plaintiff's complaint in this action makes no statement that ties together his negligence claims with any claim under the plan, nor have Defendants demonstrated any connection between the two that allows the Court to find that the Plaintiff's claims relate to the plan. The Court therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this removed case, and remands to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is therefore ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the state district court, 73rd Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas.