Paul G. Curtis and Mary Curtis v. Nevada Bonding Corporation, Douglass Financial Corporation, and Does I-Xx, Inclusive

Caution
53 F.3d 1023·95 Daily Journal DAR 5510·1995 WL 246070·19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1356·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9677
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 28, 199593-16981California2,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Defendants Nevada Bonding Corporation and Douglass Financial Corporation appeal the district court’s remand to the Nevada state district court of state law claims brought by Paul and Mary Curtis. The district court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the Curtises’ claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq., and that ERISA preempted some but not all of the.Curtises’ state law claims. We hold that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and we vacate the district court’s judgment -and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the ease to the state court.

I

Defendant Nevada Bonding Corporation (“NBC”) is a retail bond agency licensed to write bail bonds through defendant Douglass Financial Corporation (“DFC”). According to the Curtises’ complaint, Paul Curtis met with representatives of DFC and NBC in May of 1992 to discuss a potential employment opportunity with NBC. Mr. Curtis indicated that one of his principal objectives in obtaining employment was to secure health and life benefits as soon as possible. After some negotiating, Mr. Curtis accepted an offer to begin…

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.