Linda Bennett v. OFEGLI

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00137-JAB-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000050420]. Mailed to: Linda Bennett. [16-1306]

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1306

LINDA M. BENNETT, Executrix for the Estate of Elizabeth H.
Maynard and on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICE
OF
FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE’S
GROUP
LIFE
INSURANCE;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00137-JAB-JLW)

Submitted:

October 28, 2016

Decided:

March 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed
in
part,
vacated
in
part,
and
instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

remanded

with

Linda M. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth J. Bondurant,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Atlanta, Georgia;
Katherine Thompson Lange, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Joan Brodish Childs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 8

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 3 of 8

PER CURIAM:
Linda

M.

Bennett

filed

a

complaint

in

her

capacity

as

Executrix of the Estate of Elizabeth H. Maynard and on behalf of
herself

and

district

others

court’s

similarly

orders

situated.

adopting

the

Bennett

appeals

recommendations

of

the
the

magistrate judge and dismissing her claims against the Office of
Personnel Management (“OPM”) as barred by sovereign immunity and
dismissing

as

moot

her

claims

against

Insurance Company (“MetLife”). 1
order

dismissing

OPM,

the

Metropolitan

Life

We affirm the district court’s

vacate

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing as moot the claims against MetLife, and remand this
case for further proceedings.
I.
Before deciding whether the doctrines of sovereign immunity
and mootness apply in this case, we must first determine the
nature of Bennett’s claims.

While Bennett’s complaint asserted

various causes of action against Defendants arising out of their
handling of Bennett’s claim for life insurance benefits under
Maynard’s policy, Defendants contend that Bennett may only raise
a claim under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act
1

Bennett also named the Office of Federal Employee’s Group
Life Insurance (“OFEGLI”) as a defendant.
Because OFEGLI is
part of MetLife, we refer to both OFEGLI and MetLife simply as
MetLife. We refer to OPM, OFEGLI, and MetLife, collectively, as
Defendants.

3

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 4 of 8

(“FEGLIA”), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 8701 to 8716 (West 2007 & Supp. 2016).
We agree.
FEGLIA provides that
[t]he provisions of any contract under [FEGLIA] which
relate to the nature or extent of coverage or benefits
(including payments with respect to benefits) shall
supersede and preempt any law of any State or
political subdivision thereof, . . . which relates to
group life insurance to the extent that the law . . .
is inconsistent with the contractual provisions.
5 U.S.C.A. § 8709(d)(1).

In interpreting a similar preemption

provision in the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of
1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (2012), 2 we have concluded
that ERISA preempts a state law claim when the “claim may fairly
be

viewed

as

an

alternative

allegedly due under ERISA.”

means

of

recovering

benefits

Gresham v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas.

Co., 404 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir. 2005).

Similarly, the Second

Circuit has found a claim was not preempted by FEGLIA when it
did

“not

seek

to

function

as

an

alternative

mechanism to obtain benefits under a FEGLIA policy.”

enforcement
Devlin v.

United States, 352 F.3d 525, 544 (2d Cir. 2003).
Applying

these

principles,

although

Bennett

expressed

dissatisfaction with Defendants’ handling of her claim, all of
her claims related to Maynard’s insurance policy.
2

Absent this

ERISA preempts “any and all State laws insofar as they
. . . relate to any employee benefit plan.”
29 U.S.C.
§ 1144(a).

4

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 5 of 8

policy, Bennett would have no right to enforce any claims of
unfair

dealing,

bad

faith,

negligence,

or

fraud.

Moreover,

Bennett expressly sought benefits under the policy and further
contends that MetLife has improperly paid another beneficiary.
Thus, we conclude Bennett’s claims arise solely under FEGLIA.
II.
We review a district court’s dismissal of an action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
States, 814 F.3d 681, 687 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pornomo v. United

“The district courts

of the United States have original jurisdiction . . . of a civil
action or claim against the United States founded on [FEGLIA].”
5 U.S.C.A. § 8715.
this

provision

immunity.

Our sister Courts of Appeals have found that

constitutes

a

limited

waiver

of

sovereign

See, e.g., Lewis v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 301 F.3d

1352, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Atkins, 225
F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir. 2000); Barnes v. United States, 307 F.2d
655, 657-58 (D.C. Cir. 1962).
We agree with the magistrate judge and the district court
that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity
with

respect

to

Bennett’s

claims

against

OPM.

Those

claims

center on Bennett’s allegation that Maynard’s beneficiary forms
were invalid because of undue influence.
the

related

Government

administrative
to

review

regulations

designation
5

of

“Neither FEGLIA nor

impose

a

duty

beneficiary

on

the

forms

for

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

fraud.”

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 6 of 8

Argent v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. 96 Civ. 2516, 1997

WL 473975, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1997).

Rather, OPM’s duties

under FEGLIA are limited to “maintain[ing] the designation of
beneficiary forms turned over to its care.”
514.

Atkins, 225 F.3d at

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of

OPM.
Turning to the district court’s order dismissing MetLife,
“[a] case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer
live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.”

Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

When a case or controversy

ceases to exist, thereby mooting the litigation, the federal
court no longer possesses jurisdiction to proceed.

Id.

“The

requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement
of the litigation . . . must continue throughout its existence
. . . .”

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.

43, 68 n.22 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here,

the

district

court

found

that

MetLife’s

offer

of

settlement, which included tendering a check for the benefits
Bennett asserted she was due, mooted Bennett’s claims.
in

Campbell-Ewald

Supreme

Court

Co.

held

v.

that

Gomez,
“an

136

S.

unaccepted

Ct.

However,

663

(2016),

the

to

satisfy

the

offer

named plaintiff’s individual claim [is insufficient] to render a
case

moot

when

the

complaint

seeks
6

relief

on

behalf

of

the

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 7 of 8

plaintiff and a class of persons similarly situated.”
666.

Id. at

We note that the magistrate judge did not have the benefit

of Campbell-Ewald when recommending dismissal as moot of the
claims against MetLife.

In light of Campbell-Ewald, we conclude

that Bennett’s claims are not moot.

However, we conclude that

the district court did not err in dismissing Bennett’s class
claims because Bennett failed to comply with M.D.N.C.R. Civ. P.
23.l(b).

See United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792

F.3d

375

364,

(4th

Cir.

2015)

(“[W]e

may

affirm

a

district

court’s ruling on any ground apparent in the record.”).
III.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing OPM, vacate
the

district

court’s

recommendation

and

MetLife,

remand

and

proceedings

and

order

adopting

dismissing

with

claims with prejudice.

to

as

the

the

moot

the

district

instructions

to

magistrate
claims

court

dismiss

for

judge’s
against
further

Bennett’s

class

By this disposition, we express no view

on the merits of Bennett’s individual claims or whether future
developments
dispense

may

with

moot

oral

Bennett’s
argument

claims

because

7

against
the

MetLife.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-1306

Doc: 24

contentions

are

Filed: 03/28/2017

adequately

Pg: 8 of 8

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

8