California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance…
California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-08185
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In California Spine v. CIGNA, Judge Chhabria granted the motion to remand, finding no complete ERISA preemption and returning the case to California Superior Court.
The plaintiff and defendants; the case was returned from federal court to the California Superior Court in San Mateo County.
What happened
California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company concerned whether the case could remain in federal court because of federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The court found no complete ERISA preemption and stated that this case was not meaningfully different from an earlier federal appeals court decision. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court granted the motion to remand and sent the case to the California Superior Court in San Mateo County. Judge Vince Chhabria also granted a defendant’s request to file a late opposition and considered that opposition.
The detailed version
- California Spine and Neurosurgery Institue v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance… · No. 3:20-cv-08185
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The defendants included CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company. The opinion addresses whether the case was completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal law governing certain employee benefit plans. The opinion does not provide further details about the claims or the parties’ underlying dispute.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that there was no complete ERISA preemption. It cited several federal appeals court decisions and stated that there was no meaningful distinction between this case and Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co. The opinion does not provide a more detailed explanation of the comparison.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to remand and remanded the case to the California Superior Court, San Mateo County. In a footnote, the court also granted a defendant’s motion for permission to file a late opposition and stated that it considered that opposition. The order was signed by United States District Judge Vince Chhabria.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.