Davis v. Estate of Harrison, 214 F. Supp. 2d 695 (S.D. Miss.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF , MISSISSIPPI

PLAINTIFF

VS.

AND DEFENDANTS

NO.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Comes now (""), by its undersigned attorneys, and (""), individually, and hereby file their Notice of Removal of this action from the Circuit Court and for , Mississippi, in which court said action is pending, to the District Court of the United States, in and for the District of Mississippi, , and would show unto the Court as follows:

1. On an action was commenced against and in the Circuit Court of , Mississippi entitled VS. and cause no. .

2. Complete copies of the summonses, complaint, and all other pleadings and papers of record are annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "."

3. This Notice of Removal is timely under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) in that service of process was separately received by and on . Thirty days after service of process was accomplished upon and/or .

4. The above-described action is one in which this court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 in that it is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States, to wit: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. This action may be removed to this court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441.

5. The Plaintiff's employer, (""), established and maintained, through the purchase of insurance underwritten by , an employee welfare benefit plan, as defined under ERISA. The Plaintiff was, at all times relevant times, a participant of the plan of .

6. As reflected in plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of medical benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by Plaintiff's employer/sponsor, (paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 13 of plaintiff's complaint).

7. The District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over, and federal law under ERISA controls, actions such as the instant cause brought to recover benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan. Pilot Life Insurance Company v Dedeaux, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (1987). Removal of such cases to federal court is proper, notwithstanding that the complaint on its face purports to allege only state law causes of action. Metropolitan Life Insurance Comnanv v. Taylor, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (1987).

WHEREFORE, and pray that the above action now pending against them in the Circuit Court of , Mississippi, be removed there from to this court.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:

Telephone:

MSB #:

Attorney for