823 F. Supp. 2d 370
N.D.W. Va.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Carol Councell and Charles Councell allege age, gender, and disability discrimination and health-insurance claims against Homer Laughlin China Co. (HLC) following Carol Councell's termination after ~15 years of employment.
- HLC removed the case from state court to federal court asserting federal-question (ERISA) and diversity jurisdiction, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- Plaintiffs contend HLC’s West Virginia principal place of business and Ohio citizenship create a forum-defendant issue and potential waiver of removal defects.
- Count II alleges discrimination related to plaintiffs’ claims to the company health-insurance plan, implicating ERISA § 510; other counts assert various state and common law theories.
- The court grants leave to amend the complaint as a more definite statement and denies HLC’s strike motion as moot; remand is denied and several counts are dismissed or retained for amendment.
- The amended complaint must not raise new theories and should address defects identified in the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA preemption converts Count II to a federal claim | Councells: no ERISA claim pled; preemption not applicable | HLC: Count II is ERISA-preempted and removability rests on federal question | Count II is ERISA-preempted; federal-question jurisdiction exists |
| Whether forum-defendant removal is waivable as a procedural defect | Councells waived/remand timely challenges not filed within 30 days | HLC: defect is procedural, waiver applies; 1447(c) controls timing | Waiver applies; remand denied due to procedural defect or subject-matter jurisdiction remains intact under §1331/1332 |
| Whether Counts II–V should be dismissed for failure to state a claim | Counts II–V pled with sufficient facts at pleading stage; merits discovery | Counts II–V deficient or not viable under WV law or ERISA; dismissal warranted | Counts II, III, IV, V dismissed; Counts I and VI survive; loss of consortium survives |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted and under what conditions | Amendment should be allowed to cure deficiencies | Amendment unlikely to cure all deficiencies; strike may be moot | Leave to amend granted as a more definite statement; no new theories; deadline set |
Key Cases Cited
- Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.2005) (complete preemption rare; ERISA § 510 analyzed for preemption)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1987) (complete preemption by ERISA § 502/514)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1990) (ERISA preemption scope for plan-benefit claims)
- Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir.2006) (forum-defendant rule treated as a procedural defect (waivable))
- Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.1999) (legislative history supporting 30-day remand window)