Pacific Bells LLC v. Inslee

Opinion

1 2

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 PACIFIC BELLS, LLC, et al., 7 Plaintiffs, 8 v. C21-1515 TSZ 9 JAY INSLEE, Governor of the State of MINUTE ORDER Washington, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 13 (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, docket no. 50, is DENIED. Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, the Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs had presented no basis for 14 federal-question jurisdiction because their claims did not involve an “employee benefit plan” governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), see Pac. 15 Bells, LLC v. Inslee, No. C21-1515, 2022 WL 1213322, at *2–3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2022), was not dictum. Whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction is always 16 the starting point for any decision. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court’s ruling was not necessary in light of its Tax Injunction Act analysis is exactly backwards; the Tax 17 Injunction Act operates only to annul any federal-question (or diversity) jurisdiction that the Court might otherwise have. Plaintiffs’ further contention that the Long-Term 18 Services and Supports Trust Program (“WA Cares”)1 imposes mandatory employee-

19 1 Plaintiffs’ reliance on characterizing WA Cares as a “multiple employer welfare arrangement,” 20 as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(40)(A), is misplaced. ERISA makes clear that Subchapter I of Chapter 18 of Title 29 of the United States Code applies only to an “employee benefit plan” that 21 is “established or maintained” by an employer or an employee organization or both. 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a). With respect to WA Cares, the State of Washington is not an employer or employee 22 organization. See Pac. Bells, 2022 WL 1213322, at *2–3. 1 benefit requirements on employers in violation of ERISA ignores both the statutory language and the substance of the Court’s Order. Finally, plaintiffs’ attempt to 2 distinguish Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, 997 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2021), fails. Like the state-managed individual 3 retirement account program at issue in Howard Jarvis, known as “CalSavers,” WA Cares “does not require employers to operate their own ERISA plans” and “does not have an 4 impermissible reference to or connection with ERISA.” Id. at 853. 5 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 6 Dated this 11th day of May, 2022. 7 Ravi Subramanian 8 Clerk 9 s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22