Durham v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
236 F. Supp. 3d 1140·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66653
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 2017Case No. 2:16-cv-08202-ODW(KSx)California6,216 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wright, J.

*1144 ORDER GRANTING, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [10] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [11]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Melvyn L. Durham alleges that Defendants The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) and Loyola Marymount University (“LMU”) wrongfully denied him disability benefits, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) completely preempts Plaintiffs state law claims. Plaintiff contends that the benefit plan at issue is a “church plan,” and thus exempt from ERISA. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint based on ERISA preemption, and Plaintiff,moves to remand the. case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of a forum selection clause. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)

II. BACKGROUND

For approximately thirteen years, LMU employed Plaintiff as a Craft Shop Manager.…

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.