Brand v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Filing 11

ORDER AND REASONS granting 8 Motion for partial Dismissal for failure to state a claim is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty and equitable relief claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2018. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES BRAND,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 17-12094

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON,
Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary
duty claim and claim for “equitable relief.”1 The motion is unopposed. For the following
reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2017, Plaintiff Charles Brand filed a complaint against Defendant
Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (“Liberty”) pursuant to

the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for recovery of disability benefits
under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).2 In addition to his ERISA claims, Brand also brings a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty3 and seeks “equitable relief.”4 On January 8, 2018,
Liberty moved to dismiss Brand’s breach of fiduciary duty claim and equitable relief claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).5

R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc. 1.
3 Id. at 3, ¶ VIII.
4 Id. at 4.
5 R. Doc. 8.
1

2

1

STANDARD OF LAW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss
a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle
him to relief.6 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”7 “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”8
However, the court does not accept as true legal conclusions or mere conclusory
statements,9 and “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”10 “[T]hreadbare recitals of
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” or “naked
assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement” are not sufficient.11
In summary, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.”12 “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not
‘show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”13 “Dismissal is appropriate when the
complaint ‘on its face show[s] a bar to relief.’”14

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.
2007).
7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of the State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir.
2001) (citing Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993)).
11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 678 (citations omitted).
12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
13 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
14 Cutrer v. McMillan, 308 F. App’x 819, 820 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Clark v.
Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d 967, 970 (5th Cir. 1986)).
6

2

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff complains Liberty breached the fiduciary duties it owed to him “by
refusing to pay the total disability benefits to which he is entitled under The Plan and the
disability insurance policy issued by LIBERTY.”15 Plaintiff further alleges he is entitled to
“equitable relief.”16
Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty allegation fails under Varity Corp. v. Howe,17
an ERISA case in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated “where Congress elsewhere
provided adequate relief for a beneficiary’s injury, there will likely be no need for further
equitable relief.”18 Thereafter, in Tolson v. Avondale Indus.,19 the Fifth Circuit stated that
a participant cannot bring an ERISA denial of benefits action under 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(1)(B) as a § 1132(a)(3) breach of fiduciary duty claim. 20 “It is settled law in this
circuit that a potential beneficiary may not sue for breach of fiduciary duty if he has a
pending claim under section 1132(a)(1)(B) for benefits allegedly owed.”21 Thus, “Because
Plaintiff has resorted to the principal remedy for ERISA claimants [section 1132(a)(1)(B)],
[]he has also failed to state a claim under § 1132(a)(3) as described by the Supreme Court
in Varity.”22

R. Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ VIII.
Id. at 4.
17 516 U.S. 489, 508–15 (1996) (holding that ERISA authorized a claim for equitable relief under subsection
502(a)(3) for personal recovery when no other appropriate equitable relief is available).
18 Id. at 515.
19 141 F.3d 604, 610 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Tolson’s efforts to justify assertion of breach of a fiduciary duty claim
against the Plans by distinguishing such a claim from his claims for coverage and benefits claims are
woefully unavailing.”).
20 Id.
21 Metro. Life Ins. Co v. Palmer, 238 F. Supp. 2d 826, 830 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (citing Tolson, 141 F.3d 604,
610 (5th Cir. 1998)).
22 Constantine v. Am. Airlines Pension Benefit, 162 F. Supp. 2d 552, 557 (N.D. Tex. 2001); see also Torrence
v. New Orleans Elec. Pension and Annuity Plan, No. 17-1500, 2017 WL 3158148, at *2 (E.D. La. July 25,
2017) (“ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) states that a civil action may be brought by a plan participant ‘to recover
benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify
his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.’ 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Thus, to the extent
plaintiff believes NOEPP improperly denied him benefits, plaintiff has an adequate remedy under section
15

16

3

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief, it is well settled that Congress
did not provide for compensatory, liquidated, or punitive damages as relief for ERISA
claims for recovery of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).23
Because it is clear Plaintiff cannot allege any set of facts that would entitle him to
relief for his breach of fiduciary claim or his claim for equitable relief, the Court grants
Liberty’s motion to dismiss these claims.24
Accordingly;
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal for failure to
state a claim is GRANTED.25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty and
equitable relief claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of January, 2018.
_______ ____ _______ _ ____
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

502(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff is therefore precluded from bringing a claim for equitable relief under section
502(a)(3).”).
23 Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 255–58 (1993) (holding that ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(3), which allows plan beneficiary to bring action to obtain “appropriate equitable relief” for
violations of either ERISA or ERISA-qualified plan, does not allow such beneficiary to sue plan fiduciary in
his or her individual capacity for extracontractual damages, which are “the classic form of legal relief”);
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 148 (1985) (holding that ERISA § 502(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(1), which allows plan beneficiary to bring action for fiduciary breach, does not allow such
beneficiary to sue plan fiduciary in his or her individual capacity for extracontractual damages); see also
Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 944 (5th Cir. 1999); Weir v. Fed. Asset
Disposition Ass’n, 123 F.3d 281, 290 (5th Cir. 1997).
24 See Clark, 794 F.2d at 970.
25 R. Doc. 8.
4