# Marilyn Goepel Ronald Goepel v. National Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Division of Liuna, D/B/A Mail Handlers Benefit Plan

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · October 25, 1994 · 36 F.3d 306

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487362

## Case

- **Full name:** Marilyn GOEPEL; Ronald Goepel, Appellants, v. NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION, a DIVISION OF LIUNA, D/B/A Mail Handlers Benefit Plan
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** October 25, 1994
- **Citations:** 36 F.3d 306; 18 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2046; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30133
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Stapleton, Greenberg, Atkins, Sloviter, Becker, Mansmann, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, McKee
- **Cited by:** 124 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded — as noted by a later court.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487362

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 o…
- 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
- emphasizing that rejection of complete preemption argument for removal purposes did not prejudice merits of defendant’s preemption claim in state court, and noting that state courts are competent to determine such ordinary preemption questions

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487362. Public record. Not legal advice.