Ruby Browder v. The CBE Group, et al, No. 09-3542 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - ERISA. Orders granting defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissal are affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3542 ___________ Ruby Sue Browder, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. The CBE Group Inc. Litigation Center; * Kevin D. Ahrenholz; Aetna * [UNPUBLISHED] Incorporated, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 2, 2010 Filed: June 7, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ruby Browder appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim in her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the United States Constitution, and state law. 1 The HONORABLE JAMES E. GRITZNER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE ROSS A. WALTERS, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Browder s complaint alleged that Aetna Incorporated (Aetna), the underwriter of Browder s employer health insurance plan, wrongfully failed to provide coverage for medical bills she incurred at an Iowa hospital, and that the CBE Group (CBE), a collection agency assigned to Browder s hospital account, and its attorney Kevin Ahrenholz, used false documents to obtain a small claims judgment against her. The district court granted summary judgment for Aetna on res judicata grounds. The district court then dismissed the claims against CBE and Ahrenholz because they are not subject to liability under ERISA, and because Browder failed to plead any constitutional claims against them. Having dismissed any federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Following careful de novo of the record, see Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment); Owen v. General Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissal), the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court opinions. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
