Dahl v. Charles F. Dahl, M.D., P.C.
744 F.3d 623
10th Cir.2014Background
- Dr. Dahl and Ms. Dahl divorced in July 2010 after four years of dispute; Ms. Dahl sued Dr. Dahl, the pension trust, Blakelock, and Peterson in federal court for ERISA and wiretap-related claims, plus state-law claims; the district court dismissed ERISA for lack of ERISA-covered employee benefit plan and dismissed wiretap claims with Peterson entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirms in part and remands on certain issues.
- State-court custody orders from 2006–2009 granted and modified supervised visitation, allowed monitoring/recording of Ms. Dahl’s conversations, and eventually shifted to unsupervised visitation with ongoing monitoring considerations; orders discussed recording conversations and cautioned about legal boundaries.
- July 18, 2007 order authorized monitoring of Ms. Dahl’s telephone conversations; October 7, 2009 order ended supervision and allowed unsupervised visitation with conditions and potential monitoring; November 3, 2009 court warned about recording law but did not explicitly cancel monitoring.
- Dr. Dahl recorded a October 12, 2009 conversation with Ms. Dahl; the court indicated monitoring was permissible under the prior order and advised caution; there is a dispute about whether monitoring continued after November 3, 2009.
- The ERISA claim centers on whether the Dr. Dahl pension trust qualifies as an employee benefit plan; Dahl argues divorce transformed Ms. Dahl into an employee participant, but evidence did not establish her employee status post-2010; the court must determine ERISA coverage as an element, not a jurisdictional issue; issues regarding GAL immunity and wiretap claims are separately resolved.
- The appellate court remanded for (i) merits-based resolution of ERISA status with prejudice dismissal, (ii) further proceedings on post-November 3, 2009 monitoring, and (iii) discretionary decision on state-law wiretap claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA covers the pension trust. | Dahl contends divorce turned Dahl into an employee participant, making the trust ERISA-covered. | Dahl cannot show Dahl was an employee post-divorce; plan not ERISA-covered. | ERISA coverage not shown; ERISA claim affirmed to be merits-based dismissal. |
| GAL Peterson’s immunity from wiretap claims. | Peterson acted outside immunity by recording and using conversations. | Peterson acted within GAL duties; immune. | Peterson entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; dismiss wiretap claim against him. |
| Whether October 12, 2009 recording was authorized by a court order. | Recording violated wiretap law since order did not authorize recording. | Recording was reasonably based on July 18, 2007 order permitting monitoring. | Objectively reasonable reliance on July 18, 2007 order; remand not necessary for October 12 recording. |
| Whether post-November 3, 2009 monitoring occurred; unresolved factual dispute. | Dahl presented evidence of additional recordings after November 3, 2009. | Remand for further proceedings to resolve disputed monitoring after November 3, 2009. | |
| Whether the district court should exercise jurisdiction over state-law wiretap claims. | State-law claims should be adjudicated in federal court. | Court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction. | Affirmed decline of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; remand considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yates, Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2004) (ERISA remedies and access to federal courts)
- Sipma v. Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co., 256 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 2001) (ERISA employee eligibility exclusions)
- Daft v. Advest, Inc., 658 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2011) (ERISA existence not jurisdictional; merits-based analysis)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court 1978) (immunity boundaries; acting with jurisdictional basis)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court 1985) (absolute/ quasi-judicial immunity rationale)
- Gardner ex rel. Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1989) (GALs entitled to immunity when acting as court functionary)
- Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (GAL authority and immunity)
- Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990) (costs/benefits of absolute immunity)
- Robinson v. Union Pac. R.R., 245 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional/subject-matter considerations)