(PS) Stapleton v. United Healthcare Benefits Plan of CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACKIE STAPLETON, Case No.: 1:25-cv-0351 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND, v. AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO UNITED HEALTHCARE BENEFITS AMEND 15 PLAN OF CALIFORNIA (Docs. 5, 16, 28) 16 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 17 COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A FORM COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL 18 CASE AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ANY AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 WITHIN 30 DAYS

20 Jackie Stapleton initiated this action by filing a complaint against United Healthcare 21 Benefits Plan of California in the small claims division of the San Joaquin County Court. 22 Following removal, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Plaintiff’s state law 23 claims are completely preempted by Section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement and Income 24 Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). (Doc. 5.) While the motion was pending, Plaintiff 25 filed a motion to remand the matter to the San Joaquin County Superior Court.1 (Doc. 16.) 26 The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that 27

1 1 the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand and grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 28.) 2 Specifically, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff waived any objection to the timeliness of 3 Defendant’s removal, because it was more than 30 days after removal. (Id. at 8.) The magistrate 4 judge also found the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and removal was proper, because the 5 state law claims raised “are completely preempted by ERISA.” (Id. at 12; see also id. at 8-12.) 6 Thus, the magistrate judge found the Court should dismiss the complaint. (Id. at 12-13.) 7 The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff did not request leave to amend. (Doc. 38 at 13.) 8 However, the magistrate judge determined leave to amend was appropriate, because “[a]llowing 9 Plaintiff to allege a claim under ERISA at this stage in the proceedings does not appear 10 necessarily futile.” (Doc. 28 at 13 [citations omitted].) The magistrate judge recommended the 11 Court grant Plaintiff “leave to amend to file an amended complaint consistent with the[] findings 12 and recommendations if she believes she can do so in good faith.” (Id. at 13-14.) 13 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 14 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 28 at 15.) The Court advised the parties the 15 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 16 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor 17 Defendant filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 18 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 19 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 20 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 29, 2025 (Doc. 28) are ADOPTED. 22 2. Plaintiff’s motion for remand (Doc. 16) is DENIED. 23 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. 24 4. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 25 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a form complaint for a civil case. 26 6. Plaintiff SHALL file any amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of 27 this order. 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal 2 of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ August 21, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28