Board of Trustees of the Ibew v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE IBEW                   No.    21-16424
    LOCAL NO. 640 AND ARIZONA
    CHAPTER NECA HEALTH AND                         D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01260-MTL
    WELFARE TRUST FUND, as fiduciary of
    its welfare plan,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
    COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 7, 2022
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    The Board of Trustees (“Board”) of the IBEW Local No. 640 and Arizona
    Chapter NECA Health and Welfare Trust Fund (“Fund”) appeals the district
    court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the Board’s lawsuit against
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 
    9 U.S.C. § 16
    (a)(3) and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Reviewing de novo, see Munro v. Univ. of S.
    Cal., 
    896 F.3d 1088
    , 1091 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.
    Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 
    9 U.S.C. §§ 1
    –16, the district court’s role
    is limited to “determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so,
    whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Berman v. Freedom
    Fin. Network, LLC, 
    30 F.4th 849
    , 855 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lifescan, Inc. v.
    Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 
    363 F.3d 1010
    , 1012 (9th Cir. 2004)).
    1. The district court correctly determined that the ERISA plan at issue,1
    even if separate from the Fund, is equitably bound by the Fund’s agreement to
    arbitrate under the principle of direct benefits estoppel. Under Arizona law, a
    nonsignatory to an agreement containing an arbitration provision may be
    compelled to arbitrate if the nonsignatory “asserts claims that must be determined
    by reference to the agreement.” Benson v. Casa De Capri Enters., LLC, 
    502 P.3d 461
    , 464 (Ariz. 2022) (quoting Austin v. Austin, 
    348 P.3d 897
    , 906 (Ariz. Ct. App.
    2015)).
    1
    The Board asserts claims against Cigna under the Employee Retirement
    Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 
    29 U.S.C. §§ 1001
    –1461. The Board
    allegedly brings these claims in its capacity as the named ERISA plan fiduciary
    rather than the Fund’s fiduciary.
    2
    The Board alleges that Cigna “concocted a scheme to secretly obtain more
    compensation than it was entitled to” and “charged excessive fees to the Plan.”
    Determining what compensation Cigna was “entitled to” or whether its fees were
    “excessive” is impossible without reference to the Administrative Services Only
    (“ASO”) Agreement, which specifies the fees that Cigna may charge. Cf. Austin,
    348 P.3d at 906 (declining to apply direct benefits estoppel when claims only “may
    require reference to the . . . agreement”). The district court properly rejected the
    Board’s representations that it would not need to rely on the ASO Agreement to
    prevail at trial. See id. (instructing courts to “look past the labels the parties attach
    to their claims to the underlying factual allegations” (quoting Reid v. Doe Run Res.
    Corp., 
    701 F.3d 840
    , 848 (8th Cir. 2012))).
    2. The district court also correctly determined that the arbitration provision
    in the ASO Agreement encompasses the parties’ dispute. The provision is
    dissimilar to that in CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., 
    751 F.3d 165
     (3d Cir.
    2014), on which the Board relies, because it applies to “any” dispute “arising from
    or relating to” the agreement’s performance or interpretation. See Cape Flattery
    Ltd. v. Titan Mar., LLC, 
    647 F.3d 914
    , 922 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the use
    of both “arising out of” and “relating to” indicates that the “parties intend[ed] to
    include a broad arbitration provision”); cf. CardioNet, 751 F.3d at 174 (finding
    3
    provision narrow because it “require[d] arbitration not of ‘all’ or ‘any’ disputes
    between the parties, but of only ‘the dispute’”).
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-16424

Filed Date: 7/18/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/18/2022