This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 3) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint as Necessary to Maintain Class Action Status and to Conduct Reasonable Discovery (Doc. # 11). Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4), Defendant filed a Reply thereto (Doc. # 7) and Plaintiffs filed a Surreply (Doc. # 14). Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint as Necessary to Maintain Class Action Status and to Conduct Reasonable Discovery (Doc. # 15). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint as Necessary to Maintain Class Action Status and to Conduct Reasonable Discovery is denied.
Plaintiff Maria Willson is a spousal beneficiary under a self-funded group health plan offered through her husband Richard Willson's employer, Ashland, Inc., and administered by Defendant Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc. Plaintiffs bring this action based upon a denial of coverage for a procedure known as Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ("IMRT") as post-operative therapy for breast cancer.
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, do not specifically identify any causes of action in their Amended Complaint. Instead, after setting forth their factual allegations, Plaintiffs demand (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendant's denial of coverage constitutes (a) bad faith under Florida Statutes § 624.155, and (b) breach of contract; (2) money damages of $30,000.00; (3) punitive damages based on the Defendant's alleged breach of Florida Statutes § 624.155; (4) a permanent injunction preventing Defendant from denying coverage for IMRT; and (5) a certification of a class "so that Defendants must reveal and remedy past denials of coverage for IMRT for other insured patients." (Doc. # 2 at 3-4).
Defendant removed this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) alleging that "the Complaint asserts a cause of action under the laws of the United States in that the plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")[29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.]." (Doc. # 1 at 2). Accordingly, Defendant alleges a federal question as the basis of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.*fn1 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendant now moves this Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that all of Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by ERISA.
A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
On a motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all the allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). Further, this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences from the allegations in the complaint. Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990)("On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.").
However, the Supreme Court explains that: While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level...
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(internal citations omitted). Further, courts are not "bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). In all, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will "be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
Congress specifically intended for ERISA to preempt "any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan" and expressly provided that ERISA be the exclusive cause of action for the recovery of benefits under ...