OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Kevin and Valerie Riddle bring this putative class action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”), against defendant PepsiCo, Inc. Now pending is PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #47). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1355. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations in the second amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, as summarized below. This case concerns alleged deficiencies in the COBRA notices PepsiCo sent the Riddles in February 2018. According to the second amended complaint, while Kevin Riddle worked at PepsiCo, both he and his wife Valerie participated in PepsiCo’s health care plan. PepsiCo terminated Kevin Riddle’s employment on January 30, 2018. Kevin Riddle’s termination was a qualifying event pursuant to COBRA.1 Under COBRA, Kevin Riddle and other covered individuals, i.e., Kevin Riddle’s wife Valerie, could continue their health insurance. Accordingly, on February 5, 2018, PepsiCo mailed the Riddles two letters respecting their COBRA enrollment (the “notices”). One letter was addressed to Kevin Riddle and Family and entitled “COBRA/Continuation Coverage Enrollment Notice.” (Doc. #44 (“SAC”) Ex. B). The other letter was addressed to Kevin Riddle entitled “Important Information About Your COBRA Continuation Coverage Rights.” (SAC Ex. C). According to the Riddles, the plan administrator was PepsiCo Administration Committee and the COBRA claims administrator was Alight Solutions, LLC. The Riddles claim PepsiCo failed to provide the Riddles, as required by COBRA, notice of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying event. Specifically, the Riddles allege PepsiCo provided multiple notices instead of a single notice, and that together, the notices failed to provide the name and address of the plan administrator, PepsiCo Administration Committee, and the COBRA claims administrator, Alight Solutions, as well as any of the procedures for electing continuation coverage or an election form. The Riddles allege these deficiencies prevented them from “mak[ing] an insformed decision about their health insurance and [they] lost health coverage.” (SAC 11).2 Following the Riddles’ “loss of insurance coverage,” they claim to have “incurred medical bills” related to Valerie Riddle’s doctors’ appointments and surgery. (SAC
