Roessert

Roessert v. Health Net

Good Law
929 F. Supp. 343·1996 WL 45287·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2110
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1996C-95-0604 MHPCalifornia4,866 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, Patricia and Albert Roessert, participants in Bank of America’s (“BOA”) employee health benefits program, filed a complaint in Contra Costa Superior Court alleging general and medical negligence in defendants’ treatment of Patricia Roessert. Defendants Hill and Health Net timely removed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a) on the grounds that the claims against them were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and that ERISA confers federal question jurisdiction on this court. Now before the court are motions by all the named defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and a cross-motion by plaintiffs to remand the action to state court.

Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

Patricia and Albert Roessert both worked for BOA when BOA contracted with Health Net to provide medical and health insurance coverage to its employees. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the BOA plan is an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. Health Net is a federally qualified…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.