Brodowy

MEMORANDUM **

The district court held that Appellant Marcela Brodowy’s claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and that her state-law claims are barred under the relevant Arizona statutes of limitations. We affirm.

Brodowy’s state-law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation do not “relate to any employee benefit plan.” See 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a). “State law ‘relates to’ an ERISA benefit plan if there is a *14 ‘connection with’ or ‘reference to’ such a plan.” Abraham v. Norcal Waste Sys., Inc., 265 F.3d 811 , 820 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Blue Cross v. Anesthesia Care Assocs. Med. Group Inc., 187 F.3d 1045 , 1052 (9th Cir.1999)). A state law claim may have a “connection with” an ERISA plan if it “encroach[esj upon ERISA-regulated relationships,” id. at 820, “such as between plan and plan member, plan and employer, and plan and plan trustee,” Blue Cross, 187 F.3d at 1053. Brodowy and Raytheon stand in no such relationship with respect to her claims in this case. The causes of action also do not make “reference to” an ERISA benefit plan.

For similar reasons, Brodowy’s claims are not preempted because they are not displaced by…