City of Hope National Medical Center v. AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers' Health & Welfare Plan

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL No. 09-56236
CENTER, a California non-profit public
benefit corporation, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03097-RGK-RC
Plaintiff - Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
AFL HOTEL & RESTAURANT
WORKERS’ HEALTH & WELFARE
PLAN, a voluntary employees’ benefit
association,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
City of Hope National Medical Center appeals the district court’s dismissal
of its complaint against AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers’ Health & Welfare Plan
on the ground that its claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
reverse and remand.
The district court determined that City of Hope’s common law claims were
preempted under the “conflict preemption” clause of ERISA, which provides that
ERISA shall generally “supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now
or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). The parties
do not contest the district court’s determination that the AFL plan at issue is an
“employee benefit plan” under ERISA.
A common law claim relates to an employee benefit plan governed by
ERISA “‘if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.’” New York State
Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645,
656 (1995) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983)).
Accepting the allegations in City of Hope’s complaint as true, as we must at
this stage, City of Hope alleges the existence of its own contract with and
representations from AFL. City of Hope brings suit on that basis and not as an
assignee of benefits under an ERISA plan. See Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l
2
League of Postmasters of the U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2007); Blue Cross
of Cal. v. Anesthesia Care Assocs. Med. Group, Inc., 187 F.3d 1045, 1052-54 (9th
Cir. 1999); The Meadows v. Employers Health Ins., 47 F.3d 1006, 1008-09 (9th
Cir. 1995).
On the basis of the pleadings and record before us, we cannot determine that
these claims nonetheless “relate to” an ERISA plan so as to be preempted under 29
U.S.C. § 1144(a). The alleged contract between City of Hope and AFL was not
supplied by either party. Nor was the ERISA plan. The complaint alleges very
little information about the contract and representations at issue. There is therefore
not a basis for concluding that the claims were preempted at the pleading stage.
We remand for further proceedings, but do not foreclose the possibility that AFL
may establish preemption under § 1144(a) upon a more developed record.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3