1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BEACH DISTRICT SURGERY CENTER, No. CV 25-5221-E

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

14 COMPUTACENTER UNITED STATES, ORDER OF REMAND INC., ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16

17

18 BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS 19 20 On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of 21 the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges, in pertinent part: 22 23 Plaintiff is a “Medical Provider.” “Aetna Life Insurance Co. (“Aetna”) is and 24 was Defendant’s agent and representative in connection with stating the manner 25 of payment for medical services and providing other administrative services 26 relating to the Patient’s and Defendant’s health plan.” 27 /// 1 “All of the claims asserted in this complaint are based upon the individual 2 and proper rights of Medical Provider in its own individual capacity and are not 3 derivative of the contractual or other rights of the Medical Provider’s Patient. . . . 4 Medical Provider does not in any way seek to enforce the contractual rights of 5 the Medical Provider’s Patients, through the Patients’ Insurance contract, 6 policies, certificates of coverage or other written insurance agreements.” 7 8 “On May 9, 2024, Patient received a surgical procedure from Medical 9 Provider.” 10 11 “On May 01, 2024, so as to determine whether or not to provide services, 12 Medical Provider’s representative, N. Escoto, spoke with Defendant’s 13 representative, regarding the manner in which Medical Provider would be paid for 14 services.” 15 16 “Medical Provider asked: does Defendant pay based on UCR [usual and 17 customary rates] for procedure code 29880, 29881, 29882, 29883, 29888 and 18 other similar codes within the same family?” 19 20 “Defendant represented to Medical Provider that for services in connection 21 with procedure code 29880, 29881, 29882, 29883, 29888, Defendant pays the 22 UCR rate.” 23 24 “Defendant represented to Medical Provider that for services in connection 25 with procedure code 29880, 29881, 29882, 29883, 29888, Defendant’s payment 26 would not be based on the Medicare Fee Schedule.” 27 /// 1 “Despite representing that payment would be made at the UCR rate, 2 Defendant knew or should have known that it would not be paying Medical 3 Provider at the UCR rate.” 4 5 “Despite representing that payment would not be made at a Medicare rate, 6 Defendant knew or should have known that it would be paying Medical Provider 7 at a Medicare rate.” 8 9 “Medical Provider relied on and provided services solely based on 10 Defendant’s statements, promises and representations. Statements which had 11 no relation to Defendant and Patient’s plan document, as the statements may or 12 may not have been based in the Defendant or Patient’s plan documents, but that 13 bore no consideration where Medical Provider agreed to provide medical 14 services [sic]. Medical Provider took Defendant at its word and promises and 15 provided services based solely on those promises and representations.” 16 17 “Following the procedure, Medical Provider submitted to Defendant 18 through Aetna any and all billing information required by Defendant and Aetna, 19 including a bill for $61,760.00.” 20 21 “Defendant processed the bill and made a payment of $2,260.48.” 22 23 “The amount paid was based on Medicare and was well below the UCR 24 amount represented during the oral communications between Medical Provider 25 and Defendant.” 26 27 Based on these allegations, the Complaint pleads state law claims for negligent 1 On June 9, 2025, Defendant filed a “Notice of Removal” in this Court. Defendant 2 therein claimed that there exists federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s state law 3 claims assertedly are “completely preempted by ERISA.”1 On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 4 “Motion to Remand” (“the Motion”). On July 25, 2025, Defendant filed opposition to the 5 Motion. Plaintiff filed a reply on July 30, 2025, and a “Notice of Supplemental, etc.” on 6 August 6, 2025. 7 8 The previously noticed August 15, 2025 hearing is vacated. The Court has taken the 9 Motion under submission without oral argument. 10 11 APPLICABLE LAW 12 13 A defendant properly may remove a civil action from state court to federal court only if 14 the action originally could have been brought in federal court. See

(a). 15 Where a complaint pleads only state law claims, there generally is no federal question 16 jurisdiction, even if there may exist a federal preemption defense to the state law claims, 17 including a preemption defense under ERISA. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila,

200, 207 (2004) (“Davila”). However, claims that purport to rely on state law arise under 19 federal law, and thus support federal question jurisdiction, where Congress has completely 20 preempted the relevant area of the law. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

, 392- 21 93 (1987). 22 23 The removing party bears the burden of proof on the jurisdictional issues, and there is 24 a “strong presumption” against removal. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th 25 Cir. 1992). Indeed, remand is required “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 26 first instance.” Id.; see also

(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 27 1 Defendant has not claimed, then or now, that there exists diversity jurisdiction. 1 appears that the district court lacks jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 2 3 The United States Supreme Court has created a two-part test to determine whether 4 state law claims are completely preempted by ERISA. See Davila, 542 U.S. at 210. A state 5 law claim “is completely preempted if (1) an individual, at some point in time, could have 6 brought [the] claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and (2) where there is no other independent 7 legal duty that is implicated by a defendant’s actions.” Marin General Hosp. v. Modesto & 8 Empire Traction Co.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (“Marin”) (citing Davila; quotations 9 omitted). 10 11 DISCUSSION 12 13 Defendant has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that complete preemption 14 here applies. Remand is required. 15 16 The present case is legally indistinguishable from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Marin. 17 There, as here, the plaintiff pled only state law claims arising from the defendant’s alleged 18 telephonic promise regarding the rate to be paid for medical services rendered by the plaintiff 19 to a patient covered by an ERISA plan. In ruling that complete preemption did not apply, the 20 Marin Court reasoned that, under the first prong of the Davila test, that plaintiff’s state law 21 claims could not have been brought under ERISA because such claims arose “out of the 22 telephone conversation” and were based on an “alleged oral contract” between the plaintiff 23 and the defendant. The Marin Court also reasoned that, under the second prong of the 24 Davila test, the plaintiff’s claims were based on an “independent” legal duty under state law 25 arising out of the same telephone conversation. 26 27 The Marin Court’s ruling and reasoning require the same result in the present case. 1 of the telephone conversation” between Plaintiff and Defendant. Under the first prong of the 2 Davila test, such claims could not have been brought under ERISA. See

Further, 3 Plaintiff’s claims are based on state law duties arising out of the same alleged telephone 4 conversation, and these are duties “independent” of ERISA within the meaning of the second 5 prong of the Davila test. See

6 7 Following Marin, district courts within this Circuit consistently have declined to discern 8 complete preemption in circumstances legally indistinguishable from the present 9 circumstances. See, e.g., Healthcare Ally Mgmt. of California, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, 2017

, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017); Healthcare Ally Mgmt. of California, LLC v. 11 Veolia ES Industrial Services, Inc.,

, at *1-3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016); 12 Galileo Surgery Center, L.P. v. Aetna Health & Life Ins., Co.,

, at *2-4 (C.D. 13 Cal. March 3, 2015); Los Angeles Sleep Studies Institute v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health 14 Ins., Co.,

, at *3-7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014); Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 15 v. American Apparel Inc.,

, at *4-6 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014); Temple 16 Hospital Corp. v. Gomez,

, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. March 11, 2014); Orthopedic 17 Specialists of Southern California v. ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan,

, at *4-6 18 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2013); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt., LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of 19 Minnesota, Inc.,

, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2012). 20 21 The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bristol SL Holdings Inc. v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., 22

(9th Cir. 2024) (“Bristol”) does not materially affect the proper analysis. The 23 Bristol decision does not concern complete preemption, only “conflict preemption.” 24 Consequently, the Bristol decision does not even mention Marin. Defendant’s evident 25 suggestion that the Bristol decision should alter the Davila/Marin complete preemption 26 analysis is rejected. After Bristol, district courts in this Circuit have continued to apply Marin 27 in circumstances legally indistinguishable from the present circumstances. See, e.g., Beach 1 || 2025) (“Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, etc.”); University of Southern California 2 || v. Heimark Distributing, LLC,

, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2024); 3 || Emsurgcare v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co.,

, 815 & n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2024). 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 7 For the foregoing reasons, this action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State 8 || of California, County of Los Angeles. 9 10 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 11 12 Dated: August 8, 2025. ZEEE LEZ 14 —— CHARLES F. EICK 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 In light of this disposition, Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss, etc.,” filed June 16, 98 2025, is denied without prejudice as moot.