Hoffman v. American Society for Techion-Israel Institute of Technology, Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER Granting 13 Motion to Dismiss and Granting 24 25 Motion to Substitute Attorney. If Plaintiffs wish to amend the dismissed claims, they must file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. John P Stennett of Stennett & Casino is substituted in as Counsel of Record for Stanley Hoffman. Attorney George de la Flor is no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/16/11. (ecs)
1
cal
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
STANLEY HOFFMAN, Individually,
and on behalf of the Estate of PHYLLIS
HOFFMAN,
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
14
15
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
TECNNION-ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, INC., et. al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 09cv2482 AJB (CAB)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS AND MOTION
TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY
[Doc. Nos. 13, 24 and 25]
Defendants’ AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION-ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOL-
19
OGY, INC. also known as AMERICAN TECHNION SOCIETY (hereinafter “ATS”) and RONNIE
20
PALLAY filed a motion to dismiss, [Doc. No. 13], seeking dismissal of: (1) Plaintiff’s third, forth, fifth
21
and sixth causes of action, and (2) individually named Defendant RONNIE PALLAY as an improper
22
defendant where Plaintiff seeks benefits under an ERISA plan. Within the motion to dismiss, the
23
Defendants’ also move to strike Plaintiff’s claim for economic or punitive damages and Plaintiff’s
24
demand for jury trial. Based upon the parties moving papers and for the reasons stated below, the
25
Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike are hereby GRANTED.
26
The Plaintiffs also filed a motion to substitute attorney, [Doc. Nos. 24 and 25], which are hereby
27
GRANTED for good cause shown.
28
///
1
09cv2482
1
2
Background
Plaintiff commenced this action individually and on behalf of his deceased wife, Ms. Hoffman,
3
seeking to recover life insurance benefits from any of the defendants and severance pay from ATS under
4
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1101. [Doc. No. 1.] On March
5
22, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in part, as set forth above; on April
6
19, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Doc. No. 17], and on April 26,
7
2010, Defendants filed a reply.
8
9
Legal Standard
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
10
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2009). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
11
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint.
12
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir.2001). The court must accept all
13
factual allegations pled in the complaint as true, and must construe them and draw all reasonable
14
inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,
15
337–38 (9th Cir.1996). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual
16
allegations, rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
17
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim has “facial
18
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
19
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129
20
S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
21
However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires
22
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
23
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). A court need not accept “legal conclusions” as true.
24
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In spite of the
25
deference the court is bound to pay to the plaintiff's allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume
26
that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the ...
27
laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council
28
of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983).
2
09cv2482
1
2
3
Discussion
1. Plaintiff’s Third through Sixth Causes of Action
Plaintiff’s third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against defendants ATS and
4
PALLAY relies on Defendants’ duty to act as fiduciaries with respect to the ERISA plan, but fails to
5
point to any specific ERISA section permitting Plaintiff to obtain relief. Even Plaintiff’s Opposition to
6
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss fails to cure this defect. [Doc. No. 17.] Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s claim
7
for damages in the form of life insurance and severance payments pursuant to section 502(a)(1)(b)
8
precludes Plaintiff from utilizing either ERISA section 502(a)(2) or 502(a)(3) to recast his arguments in
9
the form of a breach of fiduciary duty even in the alternative.
10
First, Defendants point out that section 502(a)(2) allows a beneficiary of an ERISA plan to bring
11
an action for damages against the plan’s fiduciaries only if the damages “inure to the benefit of the plan
12
and not to a single person’s benefit.” See Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. Russell, 473 U.S. 134
13
(1985). [Doc. No. 13-1.] Although the specific language in Russell applies to a defined contribution
14
plan, and here there is no evidence that Plaintiff participated in a defined contribution plan, Plaintiffs’
15
still cannot bypass the limitation against pursuing individual claims under section 502 (a)(2). See
16
Coriale v. Xerox Corp., 775 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). What Plaintiff seeks in essence is
17
redress of Plaintiff’s individual grievance against the plan’s administrators in the form of restoring
18
Plaintiff’s plan benefits.
19
Second, Plaintiff cannot rely on section 502(a)(3) to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim
20
against Defendants, because what Plaintiffs ultimately seeks in the form of declaration, is in reality
21
monetary compensation for Plaintiff’s lost benefits. See Phelan v. Wyoming Associated Builders, 574
22
F.3d 1250, 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (warning against disguising legal remedies in equitable clothing.). In
23
addition, Plaintiff is not permitted to plead equitable remedies even in the alternative because, as several
24
courts have determined, the Federal Rules of pleading are “irrelevant” here.1
25
26
27
28
1
See Jurgoran v. ITI Enterprises, No. 03C4627, 2004 WL 1427115, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 23,
2004) ( “the existence of a claim for relief under section 502(a)(1)(B) means that relief under section
502(a)(3) is not available as a matter of law”); Katz v. Comprehensive Plan of Group Ins., 197 F.3d
1084, 1089 (11th Cir. 1999).
3
09cv2482
1
Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for interference with protected rights under the ERISA plan
2
seeks to vindicate a right that is exclusively protected by ERISA section 510.2 Section 510 prohibits the
3
discharge of a plan participant “for the purpose of interfering with [her] attainment of any right . . .
4
under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. §1140. As the court in Bullock v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
5
explained, section 502(a) provides the exclusive enforcement mechanism for section 510 rights and, as
6
such, preempts any state cause of action seeking such relief “no matter how awfully pled.” 259 F. 3d
7
395 (5th Cir. 2001).
8
Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation also fall
9
within ERISA’s broad statutory preemption provision. Section 514(a) provides that a state law that
10
relates to employee benefit plans is preempted unless the ERISA savings clause applies. See Pilot Life
11
Ins. Co. V. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987). Whether a particular state law claim is pre-empted by ERISA
12
is a question of congressional intent. Id at 45. The Plaintiffs have not pointed to a distinct injury from
13
Defendants’ refusal to pay under the plan, which is fully redressed by the statutory scheme. Farr v. U.S.
14
West, Inc., 58 F.3d 1361 (9th Cir. 1995); Serpa v. SBC Communications, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865 (N.D.
15
Cal. 2004)
16
2. Individually Named Defendant Ronnie Pallay as an Improper Defendant Where Plaintiff Seeks
17
Benefits under an ERISA Plan
18
The Plaintiffs’ have named Ronnie Pallay as a Defendant in the first and third through sixth
19
causes of action in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is brought pursuant to
20
§1132(a)(1)(B), which only allows claims against the plan as an entity and is not enforceable against
21
any other person unless liability against that person is established in their individual capacity.
22
§1132(d)(2). See Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1324 (9th Cir. 1985)(finding that a
23
plaintiff may only assert a claim for disability benefits under §1132(a)(1)(B) against the ERISA plan as
24
an entity; Ford v. MCI Communications Corp. Health and Welfare Plan, 399 F.3d 1976, 1981 (9th Cir.
25
2005). Since Ronnie Pallay is not the plan administrator or the plan fiduciary, Ronnie Pallay is not a
26
proper party for the purposes of the Plaintiffs’ first cause of action.
27
28
2
See Lawford v. New York Life Ins. Co., 739 F. Supp. 906 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (Court held that any
of the Plaintiff’s claims that were associated with benefits-defeating motive were preempted by ERISA).
4
09cv2482
1
Since this Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s third though sixth causes of action as preempted by
2
ERISA, the Defendants’ motion to strike Ronnie Pallay as an improper defendant under Plaintiff’s first
3
and third though sixth causes of action is GRANTED on the same analysis.
4
3. Plaintiff’s Claim for Economic or Punitive Damages
5
Plaintiffs seek economic damages and punitive damages in the fifth and sixth causes of action.
6
(Comp., at ¶¶ 49, 50, 53 and Prayer ¶¶ 5 and 6.) These damages are not recoverable under ERISA.
7
ERISA § 502(a) provides for the exclusive remedies to recover benefits due or to enforce or clarify
8
rights under an ERISA plan, thereby preempting state law remedies. Under this provision, state law
9
claims seeking relief available under ERISA are completely preempted because this provision provides
10
the exclusive remedy for loss or denial of ERISA benefits. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481
11
U.S. 58, 63-4 (1987); Sokol v. Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 1986). Based upon the foregoing,
12
the Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim for economic and/or punitive damages in the fifth and
13
sixth causes of action is hereby GRANTED.
14
4. Plaintiff’s Demand for Jury Trial
15
ERISA does not provide for a jury trial and Ninth Circuit authority is clear on this point. See
16
Thomas v. Oregon Fruit Prods. Co., 228 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2000); Spinelli v. Gaughan, 12 F.3d
17
853, 857-8 (9th Cir. 1993). Based upon the foregoing, the Defendants’ motion to strike the Plaintiff’s
18
demand for jury trial is GRANTED.
19
20
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike, [Doc. No.
21
13] are hereby GRANTED. The Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute attorney, [Doc. Nos. 24 and 25], is
22
GRANTED for good cause shown. If Plaintiffs wish to amend the dismissed claims, they must file a
23
Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date this Order.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
DATED: November 16, 2011
27
28
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
5
09cv2482
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?