Hanna Furst, et al. v. Linda Mayne, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Robert Furst’s remaining claims with prejudice after the parties agreed that the DHF Corporation Profit Sharing Plan was not subject to ERISA. The court confirmed that claims previously brought on behalf of Hanna Furst and the Plan were dismissed without prejudice and declined to opine on any effect of the federal case’s disposition on related California proceedings.

Holdings

1. Whether the Plan is governed by ERISA is a merits question, not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
2. Robert Furst's remaining claims must be dismissed with prejudice because the parties agreed that the Plan was not subject to ERISA and Robert therefore could not establish an essential element of his claims.
3. The court declined to express an opinion on whether or to what extent this case's disposition affects Hanna Furst's estate's claims in California Superior Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the question of whether the DHF Corporation Profit Sharing Plan is governed by ERISA is jurisdictional under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or instead concerns the merits.
2. Whether Robert Furst's remaining claims should be dismissed with prejudice after the parties agreed that the Plan was not subject to ERISA and Robert could not establish that essential element of his claims.
3. Whether the court should opine on any collateral impact of the dismissal on Hanna Furst's estate's claims pending in California Superior Court.

Disposition

dismissed