The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
This case is before the Court on Defendant Employer Benefit Services of Ohio, Inc.'s ("EBS") Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.12). The parties have fully briefed the matter, (Id.; Doc. 13, 14), and the matter is ripe for decision on the merits.
The parties have consented to plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction and the case has been referred on that basis. (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff Sydney A. Garringer filed this action as a Small Claim Complaint against EBS in the Municipal Court of Xenia, Ohio, on April 16, 2008, claiming that EBS wrongfully failed to pay a medical insurance claim and seeking judgment against EBS in the amount of $442.50. GARRINGER v. EBS of Ohio, No. 08 CVI 0625 (Apr. 16, 2008); (Doc. 1, Ex. A thereto; Doc. 2). EBS removed the matter to this Court on the basis of federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). (Doc. 1). The present Motion followed.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the parties have submitted matters outside the pleadings and therefore, the Court will treat EBS's Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. On a motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden of showing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-59 (1970). Nevertheless, the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to "secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986).
Read together, Liberty Lobby and Celotex stand for the proposition that a party may move for summary judgment asserting that the opposing party will not be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to withstand a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. See, Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1989). If, after sufficient time for discovery, the opposing party is unable to demonstrate that he or she can do so under the Liberty Lobby criteria, summary judgment is appropriate. Id. The opposing party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The moving party [A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; see also, Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150, 1156 (6th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment (in other words, determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact), "[a] district court is not ... obligated to wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts that might support the nonmoving party's claim." Interroyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 (1990). Thus, in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists on a particular issue, a court is entitled to rely only upon those portions of the verified pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits submitted, specifically called to its attention by the parties.
With these principles in mind, the facts of this case at this stage of the litigation, for purposes of the present Motion only, and construed in the light most ...