Kimmel Carter Roman Peltz & O'Neill PA v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN, PELTZ, & O'NEILL, P.A., on behalf of 8 itself and all others similarly situated, 9 Plaintiff, C19-741 TSZ 10 v. MINUTE ORDER 11 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and the COSTCO 12 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM, 13 Defendants. 14 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 15 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Defendants’ motion for joinder of necessary party, docket no. 12, is 16 GRANTED. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by a Delaware personal injury law firm (“Kimmel Carter”) against Costco Wholesale Corporation and 17 the Costco Employee Benefits Program seeking to void a requirement in Costco’s Employee Benefits Program (the “Plan”) that requires attorneys to sign onto the 18 Reimbursement Agreement presented to all employees who receive benefits under the Plan. The case concerns ERISA-regulated benefits under Costco’s employee benefits 19 program. Plaintiff’s client, Ashli Gerlach, signed the Retirement Agreement, Exhibit A to the complaint in this action. As an employee of defendant Costco Wholesale 20 Corporation and a participant in the Plan, Ms. Gerlach’s rights may be affected if plaintiff succeeds in its claim for declaratory judgment in this action. Plaintiff alleges that certain 21 terms of the defendants’ Reimbursement Agreement that are quoted within paragraph 8 (of the complaint) are unlawful, unenforceable, void against public policy, and of no 22 1 effect to the proposed class. Ashli Gerlach is a necessary party under Federal Rule 19(b). Because this action will be decided under ERISA, service of process on Ms. Gerlach may 2 be effected anywhere in the United States. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 3 (2) Plaintiff’s motion to remand, docket no. 14, is DENIED. The Court has jurisdiction under ERISA. See, e.g., DB Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of 4 Arizona, Inc., 852 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) & (3)) (noting that civil actions under ERISA may be brought “by a participant, beneficiary, or 5 fiduciary”). (3) Plaintiff’s motion, docket no. 33, to defer deadline for class certification 6 motion is STRICKEN as moot. The Court will set a deadline for such motion when it issues a scheduling order in this matter. 7 (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 8 record. 9 Dated this 20th day of August, 2019. 10 William M. McCool 11 Clerk 12 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22