The ‘Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule’ and Pushing the Bounds Post-'McCulloch'
Partner Matthew Aaronson and Associates Amanda Lyn Genovese and Marlee Waxelbaum are published in the New York Law Journal for their byline, “The ‘Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule’ and Pushing the Bounds Post-‘McCulloch.’” They write, “On initial glance, McCulloch can be read narrowly, impacting only a subset of potential ERISA cases. However, McCulloch is emblematic of the growing difficulties defendants face in attempting to remove cases to federal court. At a basic level, the facts of McCulloch suggest, as found by the district court, clear complete preemption: An out-of-network provider is suing the health benefits plan administrator for additional medical benefits subject to a health plan governed by ERISA. Yet, the Second Circuit’s decision demonstrates the increasing emphasis that courts are placing on purported “well-pleaded complaints,” despite what substance and common sense might otherwise suggest. While not intended, McCulloch and its brethren ultimately represent a new era of condoned forum-shopping, incentivizing creative plaintiffs’ counsel while leaving defendants to grapple with litigating a case in an improper venue and/or defending claims that should be pre-empted by federal law.”