Nutrishare, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
2:13-cv-02378
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 12, 2014Background
- Nutrishare, Inc. moved for Certificate of Appealability of the district court's order denying certain dismissals and strikes; CIGNA opposed and Nutrishare replied.
- The counterclaims include two ERISA §502(a)(3) claims, a California UCL claim, and a fraud claim.
- The district court held CIGNA had standing as a fiduciary to pursue the ERISA claims, and that the claims were not exhausted, preemption did not apply, and the state-law conduct was not clearly unlawful.
- Nutrishare sought immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on several issues, but the court declined to certify on some.
- The court did certify the ERISA preemption issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed the entire action pending Ninth Circuit review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of CIGNA to bring counterclaims | Nutrishare argues CIGNA lacks injury and fiduciary authorization. | CIGNA contends it has fiduciary standing to enforce plan terms. | Not certified; discovery would clarify plans and standing. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | CIGNA claims require ERISA notice for recoupments. | Exhaustion applies to adverse-benefits determinations, not here. | Not certified; no substantial ground for difference. |
| ERISA preemption of state-law claims | CIGNA claims are preempted under ERISA §514(a). | Preemption is uncertain; state claims may be independent. | Certified for immediate appeal; substantial ground for difference of opinion. |
| Lawfulness of Nutrishare’s actions | Actions are lawful under California law. | California AG opinion supports legality; substantial ground insufficient. | Not certified; highly fact-dependent and pleading-stage certification inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1982) (establishes controlling-question standard for interlocutory appeals)
- Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for substantial ground for difference of opinion)
- Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir. 1993) (ERISA preemption discussed; broad preemption clause)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (U.S. 2004) (ERISA preemption of state-law claims)
- N.Y. State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1995) (relate to ERISA preemption analysis)
- Waks v. Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 263 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2001) (ERISA preemption interpretation context)
- Trustees ex rel. N. California Gen. Teamsters Sec. Fund v. Fresno French Bread Bakery, Inc., 2012 WL 3062174 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (cited for preemption discussion (WL cannot be cited here))
- Cyprus v. Cal. Attorney General opinion, (non-specified) (—) (cited as persuasive; not a controlling authority)