Emter

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Lloyd Emter (“Emter”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims against Spokane Culvert Co. (“Spokane”) and two of its officers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over Emter’s suit was premised on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , arising from Emter’s claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 . We affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case. Emter’s claim was based on the “Employment Agreement” he entered into in 1979, when he began working for Spokane. Article 12B of that agreement provided a severance benefit, entitling Emter to 4.3% (later changed to 4.4%) of the prior year’s book value of Spokane if his employment terminated for any reason. Emter alleges that the severance benefit was an “employee welfare benefit plan,” giving rise to an ERISA claim and federal question jurisdiction. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002-1003 .

“[A] relatively simple test has emerged to determine whether a plan is covered by ERISA: does the benefit package implicate an ongoing administrative scheme?” Delaye v. Agripac, Inc., 39 F.3d 235, 237 (9th Cir.1994). No…