MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER The plaintiffs, certified home health aides, allege in their amended complaint that the defendants misappropriated employee benefit plan assets in violation of the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act, N.Y. Public Health Law §3614-c (“Wage Parity Law”), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). (ECF No. 42.) On February 13, 2020, I stayed the litigation pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank. (ECF No. 80.) On June 1, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan did not have Article III standing to challenge the management of that plan. Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020). Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ERISA and Wage Parity Law claims.1 For the reasons that follow, I grant the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims and decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. BACKGROUND2 The plaintiffs are certified home health aides employed by the employer defendants, Preferred Home Care of New York LLC and Edison Home Health Care. (ECF No. 42 1.) Under New York’s Wage Parity Law, home health care workers must earn a “minimum rate,” which consists of a “cash portion” and a “benefit portion.” (Id. 2.) Employers may pay the benefit portion — which is set at $4.09 per hour in New York City and $3.22 per hour in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties — in cash, or through “any combination of cash, health, education, or pension benefits; wage differentials; supplements in lieu of benefits; or compensated time off.” (Id. 3.) In order to satisfy the benefit portion of their obligations under the Wage Parity Law, the employer defendants provided health benefits through a welfare benefit plan (the “Plan”). (Id. 5.) The Plan is a self-funded employee health benefit plan under ERISA §3(1), which means that Edison and Preferred fund a trust that pays the cost of covered medical claims. (Id. 79.) The Plan automatically enrolls employees, and requires 20 percent coinsurance and co-pays of $15 $40 with an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,600 for an individual and $13,200 for family coverage. (Id. 62.) On February 1, 2016, the employer defendants’ trust entered into an agreement with HealthCap in which HealthCap agreed to assume a 75 percent share of the Plan’s welfare benefit obligations. (Id.
81-82.) The plaintiffs allege that this arrangement — a so-called “captive insurance scheme” — was designed to refund benefit dollars to the employer defendants. (Id. 70.) According to the plaintiffs, in a captive insurance scheme, the employer pays premiums to the captive insurer, which then uses the premiums to establish a reserve to pay covered medical claims. (Id.
