explaining that the artful pleading doctrine encompasses situations of complete preemption, and that “a state cause of action is ‘really’ a federal cause of action which may be removed to federal court if the ‘federal cause of action completely preempts ... [the] state cause of action’ ”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the artful pleading doctrine encompasses situations of complete preemption, and that “a state cause of action is ‘really’ a federal cause of action which may be removed to federal court if the ‘federal cause of action completely preempts ... [the] state cause of action’ ”
- concluding that an ERISA doctrine “does not apply” in the FEHBA context after concluding that the comparable provisions are materially different
- holding that “complete preemption” doctrine “has been referred to elsewhere as the ‘artful pleading’ doctrine’
- concluding that the plaintiff's breach of contract and uncon-scionability claims, which did not rely expressly on either state or federal law, were facially state common law claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded — as noted by a later court
36 F.3d 306 (3d Cir.1994) (although the specific theory that court relied on is no longer valid because the statute was amended in 1998);
by statutemedium confidence
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Oct. 25, 1994
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellee, Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.