Kody Herbst v. Progress Rail Services Corporation and Progress Rail Manufacturing Corporation

Summary

The court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiff’s motion to remand an action involving alleged misrepresentations about the termination of employer-sponsored health coverage. It holds that removal was timely but that the defendants failed to establish federal-question jurisdiction through complete ERISA preemption of the pleaded state-law claims. The court remands the case to Miami Superior Court, denies attorney fees, and denies requests for oral argument.

Holdings

1. Removal was timely because service of the summons and original complaint on corporate defendants occurred upon receipt of the certified mail on January 5, 2026, not upon mailing on December 31, 2025. Defendants removed on February 4, 2026, within the thirty-day period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
2. The negligent misrepresentation and estoppel claims were not completely preempted by ERISA because they arose from defendants' separate oral representations and implicated legal duties independent of ERISA and the plan terms.
3. The breach-of-contract claim was not completely preempted because it included an alternative theory based on a separate employment agreement, and federal law was not essential to each theory supporting the claim.
4. Defendants did not establish federal jurisdiction through an ERISA fiduciary-breach theory because they offered only a conclusory label and did not show that Progress Rail exercised discretionary authority or control over the plan or acted in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the alleged statement.
5. Attorney fees were denied because defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal, even though their jurisdictional presentation was underdeveloped.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' removal was untimely because service occurred when Herbst mailed the summons and complaint.
2. Whether the state-law claims were completely preempted by ERISA so as to create federal-question jurisdiction and support removal.
3. Whether the alternative theory that defendants breached an ERISA fiduciary duty established federal jurisdiction.
4. Whether Herbst was entitled to attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after obtaining remand.

Disposition

remanded