Plaintiff teacher sued defendants, insurance company and insurance marketing administrator, alleging numerous state law claims based on the insurance company’s denial of benefits under two disability income protection policies. Defendants removed the action to federal court contending that the claims arose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Both sides moved for summary judgment.
Table of Contents
Overview
The teacher was denied benefits under two disability policies of the insurance company. The teacher’s complaint set forth claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1770, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The teacher moved for summary judgment regarding removal and defendants moved asserting that the teacher’s claims were preempted by ERISA and that the insurance marketing administrator could not be sued for denial of benefits under ERISA. The court held that as a matter of law the union for teachers endorsed the insurance company’s disability insurance as part of its employee benefit plan, and the plan did not come within the safe harbor regulation, and therefore the disability policies, as part of the employee benefit plan, were governed by ERISA. The governmental plan exemption did not apply because the plan was not part of a collective bargaining agreement. Because neither party briefed the issue of liability of the insurance marketing administrator this claim was denied without prejudice. An EEOC lawyer represented respondent.
Outcome
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of determination that the policies constituted an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan was granted but was denied without prejudice, regarding preemption of state law claims and lack of proper defendant. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within 20 days.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-In plaintiffs’ action alleging that defendants used fake identities and entities to infiltrate two private conferences and secretly record attendees without their consent, the district court properly denied defendants’ motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged their claims for breach of contract, RICO and federal wiretapping, fraudulent misrepresentation, trespass, non-consensual recording under Cal. Penal Code § 632(a), trespass under Cal. Penal Code § 634 for the purpose of committing a § 632 violation, invasion of privacy, wiretapping under state law, unfair business practices, and conspiracy.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.