BUKUVALAS v. CIGNA CORPORATION, et al
Filing
53
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 8/8/11. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
JOHN N. BUKUVALAS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
:
NORTH AMERICA, MERCK & CO.,
INC., formerly known as Schering-Plough :
:
Corp., TRUSTEE OF THE GROUP
:
INSURANCE TRUST FOR
:
EMPLOYEES IN THE
:
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civ. No. 10-0710 (DMC) (JAD)
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the motions of Life Insurance Company of North
America, Merck & Co., Inc., and the Trustee of the Group Insurance Trust for Employees in the
Manufacturing Industry (“Defendants”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Future Benefits in the
Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
to strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand pursuant to Rule 12(f). No oral argument was heard under Rule
78. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for future benefits is
granted and the motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand is denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff asserts a claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to recover disability benefits that were
denied to him following an illness he suffered while an employee at Schering-Plough Corp.
Defendants now seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for future benefits and a jury trial.2
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court is “required to accept as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light most
favorable to the [Plaintiff].” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). “[A]
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the Plaintiff’s “obligation to
provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. To survive a motion to
dismiss, the complaint must state a plausible claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
Thus, assuming that the factual allegations in the complaint are true, those “[f]actual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) does not allow a claim for lump sum damages.
1
The facts in the Background section have been taken from the parties’ submissions.
2
This Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim and permitted Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint limited only to the present
ERISA claim. Bukuvalas v. Cigna Corp., No. 10-0710, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127873 (D.N.J.
Dec. 3, 2010).
-2-
The Court agrees. A plaintiff may bring an action under § 502(a)(1)(B) “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). Plaintiff is not
entitled to future benefits, only a clarification of his rights to those benefits. Surdi v. Prudential Ins.
Co., No. 08-225 (GEB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61191, at *18 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2009) (“[T]he Court
cannot award Plaintiff future benefits, but rather can only clarify Plaintiff’s right to future benefits
under the plan.”). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking a lump-sum future benefits
award, that claim is dismissed. Plaintiff, however, may continue to pursue an order regarding his
rights to future benefits.
Plaintiff concedes in its opposition brief that “his demand for a jury trial in respect to his
ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim should be stricken.” Pl.’s Opp’n Br. 2. Accordingly, Defendants’
motion regarding this matter is dismissed as moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for future benefits is
granted and the motion to strike the jury demand is denied as moot.
S/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.
Date:
Orig.:
cc:
August 8 , 2011
Clerk
All Counsel of Record
Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J.
File
-3-
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?