United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Laurie Shaw filed a complaint
in state court against Defendants APWU Health Plan
(“APWU”) and LM General Insurance Company
(“LM General”). ECF 1-2
(Plaintiff's complaint). She alleged
breach of contract against LM General and sought injunctive
relief against APWU. Id. at 20- 21. On November 17,
2018, Defendant APWU removed the case to federal court. ECF 1
(notice), 5 (order granting motion for leave to file removal
petition nunc pro tunc). Plaintiff filed a motion for remand,
arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. ECF
Court reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is
unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the
reasons below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for
November 29, 2015, Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle
accident. ECF 1-2, PgID 17. Because she was an employee of
the United States Postal Service, APWU initially paid her
expenses related to the accident. Id. at 18. APWU
provides benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901, et seq.
("FEHBA"). Id. at 18.
time of the accident, Plaintiff was covered by LM
General's automobile insurance contract, and she
submitted a claim to LM General. Id. at 17. LM
General refused to pay. Its position-based on Michigan law-is
that its obligation to pay benefits to Plaintiff is secondary
to APWU's obligation to pay Plaintiff. ECF 1, PgID 3-4.
November 3, 2017, Plaintiff settled her third-party claims
for approximately $47, 000. ECF 1-2, PgID 18. APWU asserted a
lien on Plaintiff's third-party settlement, citing its
reimbursement and subrogation rights under
FEHBA.Id. at 19. Plaintiff argues that
LM General is liable for the full amount of the reimbursement
claimed by APWU. Id. Plaintiff argues that LM
General has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay
her claim. Id. at 20. She also argues that APWU can
assert its rights against LM General and seeks injunctive
relief to prevent APWU from encumbering her third-party
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(internal citations omitted).
Removal of Cases Over Which Courts Have Original
Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441
removal of civil actions statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441,
authorizes, inter alia, removal of cases over which
federal courts have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). Federal district courts have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions "arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
arising-under jurisdiction does not encompass a FEHBA
carrier's suit seeking reimbursement of the full amount
paid for a beneficiary's health care. Empire
Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677,
683 (2006). "FEHBA itself provides for federal-court
jurisdiction only in actions against the United States."
Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)
officer removal statute authorizes removal in cases against
"[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any
officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the
United States or of any agency thereof . . . for or relating
to [an] act under color of such office[.]" 28 U.S.C.
1442(a)(1). "Section 1442(a) . . . is a pure
jurisdictional statute, seeking to do nothing more than grant
district court jurisdiction over cases in which a federal
officer is a defendant."Mesa v. California, 489
U.S. 121, 136 (1989). "[I]t is the raising of a federal
question in the officer's removal petition that
constitutes the federal law under which the action against
the federal officer arises for ...