The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lifland, District Judge
Before the Court is a motion by Newark Beth Israel ("Plaintiff" or "Hospital") to reopen the case and remand it to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant, Northern NJ Teamsters Benefit Plan ("Defendant" or the "Plan"), removed the action to this Court, and now opposes a remand. The dispositive issue in this case is whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. To answer this question, the Court must interpret the language of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), in light of the "well-pleaded complaint" rule and the corollary complete preemption exception. Although Plaintiff's complaint asserts only state breach of contract claims, Defendant argues that this Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because ERISA completely preempts the asserted state law claims.*fn1 As discussed below, while ERISA may, or may not, provide Defendant a preemption defense, it does not completely preempt state law, and therefore does not create federal question jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the case will be remanded to state court.
The Plan is an "employee welfare benefit plan" as defined by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1).*fn2 At all times relevant to this action, Plan participants were eligible for hospitalization coverage through the MagNet, Inc. ("MagNet") network of hospitals. MagNet, an independent consultant, "has organized a network of hospitals that have agreed to accept discounted payment for medical services provided to beneficiaries of group health plans [including the NNJ Plan] in return for the plans' promise to encourage beneficiaries to use network hospitals." Pascack Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 396 (3d Cir. 2004).
The benefits available to Plan participants, and the terms and conditions governing the provision of those benefits, are set forth in a summary plan description ("SPD"), which instructs Plan participants to provide their Plan identification cards to MagNet hospitals when receiving treatment. The hospital then submits a claim directly to the Plan, and the Plan, in turn, evaluates whether the claim is payable. If the claim is payable and the hospital has properly represented that it was the assignee of the patient/participant, the Plan remits payment directly to the hospital.
It is important to emphasize that, despite this direct payment system, "[n]etwork hospitals do not contract directly with the plans. Instead, MagNet enters into separate contracts with individual plans, and separate contracts with individual hospitals." Id. Here, for example, MagNet entered into a "Subscriber Agreement" with the Plan and a separate contract with Newark Beth Israel. The Subscriber Agreement between MagNet and the Plan provides in relevant part that the discounted rate offered by the Hospital will be forfeited unless claims are timely paid:
Subscriber [here, the Plan] or its authorized agent shall pay Network Hospitals for Covered Services furnished to Eligible Persons. Pursuant to a valid assignment from Eligible Person, [the Plan] . . . shall directly pay Network Hospitals for Covered Services provided to Eligible Persons within thirty (30) days after date of receipt of submitted Clean Claims . . . .
For other non-clean claims, payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of all records and other information necessary for proper claims adjudication. . . . .
If [the Plan] fails to pay within the appropriate time frame, the [Plan] acknowledges that it will lose the benefit of the MagNet discounted reimbursement rate and that Network Hospital is then entitled to bill and collect from [the Plan] and Eligible Person its customary rate for services rendered. If [the Plan] fails to make the payment, the Network Hospital may pursue any remedies available against [the Plan] and Eligible Person.
Rafek Wassef, Josef Menyhart, and Walter Paz are participants in the Plan who received medical treatment from Newark Beth Israel between February and October of 1999. The total for services rendered to these three patients was $42,841.10. The Plan remitted payment in the amount of $4,560. Presumably, this figure reflects the agreed-upon discounted rate.
In January 2003, the Hospital filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that the Plan breached its contract by failing to remit payments for the three patients within the contractually prescribed time period, and accordingly, forfeited the right to pay a discounted rate.*fn3 The complaint seeks $38, 281.10 in damages-the difference between the discounted amount paid by the Plan, and the total amount charged for the medical services.
In June 2003, the Plan removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1331. On December 31, 2003, this Court filed an order "administratively terminating [the case] pending the results of any appeal in the similar cases captioned Pascack Valley Hospital v. Local 464A Welfare Fund, Civil Action No. 02-5974 (DMC) and Community Medical Center v. Local 464AWelfare Fund, Civil Action No. 03-2658 (SRC)," both of which had been recently dismissed by other judges of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.*fn4 On November 1, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the District Court's decision in Pascack. See Pascack Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). On July 29, 2005, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision in Community Medical. See Community Medical Center v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 143 Fed.Appx. 433 (3d Cir. 2005) (not-precedential opinion). As a result of these decisions, the Hospital filed the instant motion to reopen and remand.*fn5
The Plan does not oppose reopening of the case. Given the Third Circuit decisions in Pascack and Community Medical, and the terms of the administrative termination of the case, the Plaintiff's motion to reopen will be granted. The Court turns now to the more ...