Senn Moses v. the Nielsen Company, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Senn Moses (“Moses”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to remand this case to state court. The district court determined that Moses’s state law claims were preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Moses also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to The Nielsen Company (“Nielsen”). We affirm both decisions of the district court.

For his arguments against preemption and in favor of remand, Moses relies heavily on Graham v. Balcor Co., 146 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.1998). In Graham , neither party disputed that the agreement giving rise to Graham’s claims was made outside of the context of any ERISA plan, although such a plan was the subject of the agreement. Here, Nielsen argues that the agreement giving rise to Moses’s claims is part of its Career Transition Plan (“Plan”), which is governed by ERISA. Moses counters that his agreement with Nielsen is separate from the Plan, like the agreement in Graham . In order to decide the merits of Moses’s claims, a court will have to interpret Plan language. For example, a crucial disclaimer is found on a form document used in Plan administration, and the disclaimer’s language…