FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NOV 24 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEDICATO TREATMENT CENTER, No. 24-6487

INC.,

D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:24-cv-03136-CAS-PD

v.

MEMORANDUM*

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a Connecticut corporation,

Defendant-Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Dedicato Treatment Center, Inc., appeals the district court’s dismissal of its

action against Aetna Life Insurance Co. under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

ERISA broadly preempts any state law claim that “relate[s] to any employee

benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). “The Supreme Court has identified two

categories of state law claims that relate to an ERISA plan—claims that have a

reference to an ERISA plan and claims that have an impermissible connection with

an ERISA plan.” Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Ins. Co., 103

F.4th 597, 602 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). “A state law claim has a

reference to an ERISA plan if it is premised on the existence of an ERISA plan, or

if the existence of the plan is essential to the claim’s survival.” Id. (citation

modified). Dedicato’s claims “reference” the Aetna-administered ERISA plans

because they are premised on “what all agree were plan-covered services” and seek

to “secure plan-covered payments . . . through the alternative means of state

contract law.” Id. at 603. “A claim has an impermissible connection with an

ERISA plan if it governs a central matter of plan administration or interferes with

nationally uniform plan administration, or if it bears on an ERISA-regulated

relationship.” Id. at 604 (citation omitted). Dedicato’s claims also have an

“impermissible connection” with an ERISA plan because, as in Bristol, their

claims risk subjecting insurers to liabilities that depend on “innumerable phone

calls and their variable treatment under state law.” Id. at 604-05.

2 Because Dedicato’s claims reference an ERISA plan and have an

impermissible connection with an ERISA plan, the claims relate to an employee

benefit plan and are therefore preempted by ERISA. Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Co., 577 U.S. 312, 319-20 (2016). Dedicato’s conclusory allegations to the

contrary do not change that outcome. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007). The district court therefore correctly dismissed Dedicato’s action.

AFFIRMED.

3