The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Glenis White (hereinafter, "White") and Charles Pendleton (hereinafter, "Pendleton") brought this Motion to Remand on behalf of themselves and as guardians for minor Plaintiffs John Banks and Danielle Pendleton (hereinafter "the Minor Plaintiffs")(collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). Defendants Humana Health Plan, Inc. (hereinafter, "Humana") and ACS Recovery Services (hereinafter, "ACS") have brought a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' Motion is denied. Humana's and ACS's Motion is granted.
The following facts were gleaned from the Complaint and Notice of Removal. This recitation of the facts has been deliberately kept simple; further elaboration will be provided as necessary.
On October 25, 2002, the Minor Plaintiffs and their mother, White, were involved in an automobile accident. At this time, the minors were covered dependents of Pendleton (their father) under a health insurance policy issued by Humana to Pendleton's employer, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (hereinafter, "ENH"). This policy, the Humana HMO Plan (hereinafter, "the Plan"), was part of ENH's employee welfare benefits plan. Humana paid the Minor Plaintiffs' medical expenses related to the accident.
Under the Plan's insuring agreement, Humana was "subrogated to all rights of recovery the member has and . . . [could] assert such rights independent of the member." Primax Recoveries, Inc. (hereinafter, "Primax") is the predecessor of ACS and is Humana's agent for the purposes of recovering payments of medical benefits from tort claim recoveries. After Humana paid the Minor Plaintiffs' medical expenses, Primax filed a lien for the recovery of the medical payments made by Humana on the Minor Plaintiffs' behalf. As a result, the Minor Plaintiffs' settlements (in the amounts of $622.00 and $142.00) included the name of Primax as an additional payee.
The Complaint alleges that the subrogation provision is unlawful as applied to the Minor Plaintiffs' settlements because Illinois law provides that a parent is liable for a minor's medical expenses. As such, Plaintiffs assert that under Illinois law, Humana and Primax cannot obtain reimbursement for medical expenses out of the Minor Plaintiffs' settlements, but must obtain reimbursement from the Minor Plaintiffs' parents by other means.
Plaintiffs assert that (1) Humana's notice of removal was insufficient and (2) Humana cannot satisfy the three-prong test for complete preemption under ERISA § 502(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a "civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court . . . " The removing party must file a signed removal notice "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Federal courts require only notice pleading. Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., 417 F.3d 444, 447 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying notice pleading standard to notices of removal). The court need only be provided with the facts from which removal jurisdiction can be determined. 14C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3733 (3d Ed. 2006).
If, however, it "the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party removing the case to federal court (and thus invoking federal jurisdiction) bears the burden of demonstrating that federal jurisdiction exists. Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006). District courts interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the plaintiff may choose his forum; there is a strong presumption in favor of remand. Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993).
In the removal petition, Humana asserted federal question jurisdiction on the basis that all "Plaintiffs' claims against Humana . . . relate to an employee welfare benefit plan . . . and are completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income ...