Ball v. Ripley

2006 DNH 015

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 25, 2006
• Docket: CV-04-183-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ball v . Ripley CV-04-183-PB 1/25/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ball et a l .

v. Case N o . 04-cv-183-PB Opinion N o . 2006 DNH 015 Ripley et a l .

ORDER

Plaintiffs William Ball, Elroy Reed, and Barbara Buckley

(“participant plaintiffs”) are former employees of Troy Mills,

Inc., a textile manufacturing company that has initiated

bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs Eleanor Ball and Doris Reed

are the spouses of William Ball and Elroy Reed. All plaintiffs

are former participants in or beneficiaries of Troy Mills’

employee health insurance plan, which was administered by

defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CGLIC”).

Defendants William Hoyt, Barrett F. Ripley, and Jim Barker

(“officer defendants”) are former officers of Troy Mills.

Plaintiffs allege that the officer defendants withheld a

portion of the participant plaintiffs’ wages for health

insurance, but failed to use the deducted funds to pay CGLIC’s premiums. They claim that this failure resulted in the

termination of plaintiffs’ benefits, and that CGLIC has refused

to pay certain outstanding medical bills incurred by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment against

the officer defendants on Count VII of their Amended Complaint.

Count VII is a statutory claim under N.H. RSA 275:48, which

imposes liability on an employer who deducts a portion of an

employee’s wages and “fails to make any payment relative to such

deduction on the employee’s behalf,” provided the “employee loses

any benefit . . . caused by such failure.” N.H. RSA 275:48(II).

Plaintiffs are not entitled to partial summary judgment on

Count VII because Count VII is preempted by the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §

1001 e t . seq. ERISA preempts a state law cause of action if the

cause of action “relates to” an “employee benefit plan.” Hampers

v . W.R. Grace & Co., 202 F.3d 4 4 , 49 (1st Cir. 2000). There is

no dispute that the Troy Mills health insurance plan was an

“employee benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA. Amended

Compl. ¶ 1 5 . A cause of action “relates to” an employee benefit

plan “‘if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.’”

Id. at 49 (quoting Shaw v . Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 8 5 , 98

-2- (1983)). Plaintiffs’ cause of action under RSA 275:48 clearly

“relates to” an employee benefit plan under this broad reading of

the term. See Perrotti v . Wal-Mart Stores, 2006 DNH 005

(discussing ERISA preemption in a similar factual context).

Plaintiffs’ claim against the officer defendants must be

based on ERISA rather than state law. See LoPresti v .

Terwilliger, 126 F.3d 3 4 , 41 (2d Cir. 1997). Therefore, I

propose to dismiss Count VII of the Amended Complaint as

preempted by ERISA. Plaintiffs may file an objection within 30

days. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to

Count VII (Doc. N o . 26) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

/ s / Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

January 2 5 , 2006

c c : Attorneys of Record

-3-