SUNDT v. TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
Filing
20
OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 11/9/12. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROBERT C. SUNDT,
Plaintiff.
Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
:
V.
OPINION
Civil Action No. 12-cv-257 (DMC)(MF)
TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. et:
a!..
Defendants,
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion of Defendants Telcordia
Technologies, Inc. (“Telcordia”), the Telcordia Technologies. Inc. Departmental Benelits
Committee (the ‘DBC”), the Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Employee Benefit Committee (the
“EBC”) and the Telcordia Technologies Pension Plan (the “Plan”) (collectively “Defendants”) to
Dismiss Plaintiff Robert C. Sundt’s (“Plaintiff’) Complaint pursuant to
FED.
R. Civ. P. 12 (h)(6).
(ECF No.1 1). Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 78, no oral argument was heard. Atler carefully
considering the submissions of the parties. and based upon the following. it is the finding of this
Court that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is granted with prejudice as to
Counts I and III and granted without prejudice as to Count II.
I. BACKGROUND’
This action involves a dispute in the amount of the pension payments being made to
Plaintiff by Defendants as part of Plaintiffs retirement pension under the Plan.
Plaintiff was employed in the telecommunications industry for thirty-five (35) years
beginning in 1964, Plaintiff was employed by Telcordia from 1994 until December 22, 2001.
Between 1 964 and 994. Plaintiff was employed by other telecommunications entities. including
Pacjfic Bell Telephone Company (Paciflc Bell”). Pacific Bell and the other telecommunications
entities form a “controlled group,” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, with Telcordia. in
1995, Plaintiff received a $425,222.85 lump sum payment from Pacific Bell’s pension plan for
his time of employment with Pacific Bell from 1964 until 1994.
During the latter part of 2001, Telcordia advised Plaintiff and other members of the
department where he was then employed, that it intended to reduce the department’s headcount
by one. Telcordia made an inquiry as to whether any employee working in the department was
interested in giving up his or her employment. Plaintiff, who was then 59 years of age, responded
by requesting information regarding the retirement benefits to which he was then entitled from
the Plan. In response to the request, Defendants informed Plaintiff that if he retired at that time.
he would be entitled to receive a monthly life annuity in the amount of $5.091 .75. and that this
monthly benefit would be payable immediately following his retirement in December 2001. On
the basis of the information provided to him by the Defendants. Plaintiff concluded that he could
afford to retire in December 2001. Defendants then provided Plaintiff with additional documents.
‘The facts set forth in the Background section have been taken from the Complaint. On this
Motion to Dismiss, the Court will accept the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and
construe all facts in Plaintiffs favor.
including a retirement application form. confirming that $5,091.75 was the amount of the
monthly annuity
payments
that Plaintiff was entitled to receive. Plaintiff completed and returned
the application form that had been provided
to
him by the Defendants
in
order
to
retire and begin
receiving retirement benefits from the Plan.
Plaintiff retired on December 22, 2001, and from that date until March 31, 2010. the Plan
paid Plaintiff a monthly pension benefit of $5,091.75. In a letter dated March 31, 2010,
Defendants informed Plaintiff that: (i) the information they had provided to Plaintiff on and
before December 2001 regarding the amount of monthly retirement benefits to which he was then
entitled was inaccurate; (ii) the pension benefit Plaintiff had been receiving had been
miscalculated; (iii) the correct amount of Plaintiffs monthly pension benefit is 97l .48. and (iv)
Defendants intended to reduce Plaintiffs monthly benefit to this lower amount effective April
30, 2010. Plaintiff has been receiving $971.48 per month since that date. Telcordia and other
entities that emerged from the AT&T breakup, including Plaintiffs prior employer, Pacific Bell,
are parties to a Mandatory Portability Agreement (“MPA”) under which each entity is required to
take into account the service of employees. such as Plaintiff who migrate between or among
them, Thus, Plaintiffs retirement benetit from Telcordia was based on his aggregate service with
Pacific Bell and Telcordia. Defendants should have offset the monthly payment to reflect the
$425.222.85 lump sum payment that Plaintiff received in 1994 from the Pacific Bell plan.
Since receiving notice of the change in monthly pension payments, Plaintiff has contacted
members of Telcordia responsible for retirement benefits administration in an effort to appeal
this determination and have his monthly payments returned to $5.09 1 .75.
Plaintiff’s Complaint states three causes of action, (Compl. Jan 13, 2012, ECF’ No. 1). In
3
Count I, Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and responsibility to
properly administer the Plan, including a responsibility to communicate accurate information to
participants and to not mislead them with regard to their rights and benefit entitlements under the
pension plan. In Count 11, Plaintiff asserts an equitable estoppel claim, arguing that l)efendants
made inaccurate representations regarding Plaintiffs monthly retirement benefits, which Plaintiff
reasonably relied on to his detriment in making an informed decision about whether to retire. In
Count III. Plaintiff asserts a breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§
1 132(a)(l)(13) and
(a)(3).
In response to the Complaint, Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss and the
Accompanying Brief in Support (“DeE. Moving Br.”) on March 9. 2012 EC1 No. 11. 13).
Plaintiff filed its Opposition Brief (“P1. Opp’n Br.) on April 23, 2012. (ECF No. 17).
Defendants filed their Reply Brief (“ Def. Reply”) on May 14. 2012. (ECF No. 18). The matter is
now before this Court.
H. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court is “required to accept as true
all ftctual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light
most lavorable to the [Plaintitli.” Phillips v. Cntv.ofAlleghenv. 515 F,3d 224. 228 (3d (.‘ir.
2008). “[Aj complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
factual allegations.” Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly. 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the
Plaintiffs “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.
4
lgbaL 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Thus, assuming that the factual allegations in the complaint
are true, those “[flactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative
level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
III. DISCUSSION
Count I. Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
-
2
§ 1132 (a)(2) and (a)(3)
In Count I, Plaintiff asserts that, as fiduciaries, Defendants had a duty and responsibility
to properly administer the Plan, which included a responsibility to communicate accurate
information to Plan participants and to not mislead Plan participants with regard to their rights
and benefit entitlements under the Plan. (Cornpl. 6). Plaintiff further contends that Defendants
breached this duty by repeatedly failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate information regarding
his rights and benefit entitlements under the Pension Plan, causing him to make decisions that
caused he and his family irreparable harm. (Compi. 6, 7). Plaintiff seeks an order restoring his
monthly annuity to $5091.75 per month, the amount that he received between December 2001
and March 2010, on a retroactive basis. (Compi., Prayer for Relief1 I)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead a fiduciary breach claim for two
reasons. First, Defendants assert that the difference between what Plaintiff received and what
Plaintiff was actually entitled to per month constitutes a windfall for Plaintiff “Equitable relief’
is not available to allow a Plaintiff to retain and continue to receive a windfall. See US Airways,
Inc. v. McCutchen, 663 F.3d 671, 678 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Equity abhors a windfall.”) Here, Plaintiff
has already received $5,091.75 per month ($4,120.27 more per month than the $971.48 that he
1n
2 its Opposition Brief Plaintiff states that it no longer bases its first cause of action on 29
U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(2). (Qpp’n Br, 1, fn. 1). For purposes of this section of the Discussion, the
Court will focus its analysis of the facts as they apply to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3) only.
5
was entitled to receive under the terms of the Plan), for the period from December 2001 until
March 2010, resulting in over $500,000.00 in overpayments. (Def. Moving Br. 8). Plaintiff now
asks the Court to continue receiving overpayments of $4,120.27 per month fhr life. This sort of
‘equitable relief” is not of the type contemplated under ERISA
§
502 (a)(3).
The facts here are similar to those in Sheward v. Bechtel Jacobs Co. LLC Pension Plan
for Grandfathered Emp., No, 3:08-cv-428, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19696 (ED. Tenn. Mar. 4,
2010), a Sixth Circuit case that this Court finds particularly persuasive. In that case, a plaintiffs
fiduciary breach claim under
§
502(a)(3) was dismissed where “plaintiff received a windfall in
the form of a double payment of his.
.
.
benefits” after his pension benefit was miscalculated.
Ii
at * 15. As in the present case, the plan in Sheward mistakenly failed to offset the plaintiffs
benefit to take into account the benefit that plaintiff previously accrued with a prior employer.
(Reply 4). Plaintiff in Sheward claimed that “he relied upon” the mistaken information provided
by the plan in making his decision to retire. Sheward, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19696 at *1. As in
this case, the error was not. discovered until years after the plaintiff retired and began receiving
benefits.
a at *5
In Sheward, plaintiff unsuccessfully sought an injunction pursuant to ERISA
§
502(a)(3) preventing his employer from correcting the error.
Here, Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to distinguish the facts here from those in
Sheward, (P1. Opp’n. Br. 10, 11, 12). The only difference that Plaintiff appears to point out is the
timing of the “offsetting” payment by plaintiffs prior employer in Sheward. However, the fact
that plaintiff in Sheward received that payment at the same time that the new employer
discovered its mistake was irrelevant to the court’s holding that the plaintiff could not receive a
double benefit, Sheward, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19696 at *5, Plaintiff Sheward’s argument that
6
he relied on the representations of his pension amount to his detriment cannot be reconciled with
the fact that he received pension benefits as required under the terms of the BJC Plan and the
USEC plan, and in fact, received part of that benefit twice.
Plaintiff here has not cited to any
cases where a plan participant was allowed to recover twice the amount of benefits that he was
entitled to. as a result of a pension plan administrator’s mistake in benefit calculations.
Even more persuasive is Defendants’ second argument, that in the Third Circuit ‘a mere
mistake will not render [a fiduciaryj liable for a loss” and “[ojniy fault in the form of bad faith
-
or negligence will.” Leckey v. Stefano, 501 F,3d 212, 224 (3d Cir. 2007);
-
iiQ. Jones v. S.
Williamsport Sch. Dist., No. 4:1 l-cv-l 179, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10099. at 9-10 (M.D. Pa. .Jan.
25. 2012) (quotation omitted)) C’When a fiduciary exercises a power with which it has been
vested, a mere mistake in exercising that authority will not render it liable for the resulting
loss
“)
Buike v Latrobe Steel Co 775 F 2d 88, 91 (3d Cir 1985) ( [A] pensionel does not
establish a violation of fiduciary duty simply by showing that the administrator did
not
follow the
terms of the plan. If such action is undertaken pursuant to a good faith. albeit erroneous.
interpretation, ERISA’s fiduciary provisions are not violated. To establish liability, willful or bad
faith conduct must be proved.”) Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provided erroneous
information regarding the amount of Plaintiff’s benefits. (Compl. ¶I 14, 15, 18. 34). Plaintiff
does not, however, assert any facts that Defendants acted in bad faith or were negligent in
miscalculating his benefit and/or failing to discover the error. Further. Plainti ITs counsel has
conceded in a letter to Defendants that “Mr. Sundt does not believe that Telcordia acted
intentionally or in bad faith when it advised him in 2001 regarding the pension benefit to which
he was entitled.
.
.
.
Mr. Sundt has no reason to doubt that the information was provided in good
7
faith,” (ECF No. 12, Ex, F, 3, Mar, 9,2012).
Plaintiff relies heavily on In re Unisys Corp., 579 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2009) to support the
breach of fiduciary duty claim, However, Plaintiff incorrectly argues that as delineated in Unisys,
579 F,3d at 228, negligence is not an element of Sundt’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.
(Opp’n.
Br. 17). The Unisys court made clear that an employer’s state of mind is directly relevant to
whether a material misrepresentation amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty:
[W)hile showing that the fiduciary had actual knowledge that a particular employee was
about to be misled is not required to satisfy [the material misrepresentation] element,
establishing a fiduciary’s liability as a result of inadequately disclosed information may
involve an inquiry into the employer’s knowledge of an employees knowledge and
understanding
in order to determine if the employer was aware of’the confusion
generated by its silence.
.
.
.
579 F.3d at 229 (quotations omitted).
Absent a showing of either (1) case law in support of the proposition that a pension plan
participant is entitled to receive the double benefit that Plaintiff here has received and (2)
negligence or bad faith on the part of Defendants in this case, the Court, even in construing the
facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, cannot find enough factual support for Plaintills
argument that he is entitled to relief for Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to 29
U.S.C.
§
11 32(a)(3). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count I is granted with
prej udice.
Count IL Equitable Estoppel, Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
-
§
1132 (a)(3)
In Count II, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made inaccurate representations regarding
the amount of monthly retirement benefits to which Plaintiff was entitled, Plaintiff further
contends that these misrepresentations were material, because as a reasonable employee, Plaintiff
8
relied on them in making his decision to retire, and without those inaccurate representations,
Plaintiff would not have elected to retire. (Compl. 9. 10).
A participant or beneficiary in an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA can also state a
claim for “appropriate equitable relief’ pursuant to section 502(a)(3) of ERISA based on a theory
of equitable estoppel. Curcio v. John Hancock Mut.Life Ins. Co., 33 F.3d 226. 235 (3d Cir,
1994). To establish a legally sufficient cause of action for equitable estoppel, a plaintiff must
establish: (1) a material misrepresentation; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the
representation and (3) extraordinary circumstances, Pell v. E.1. DuPont Dc Nemours & Co., 539
F.3d 292, 300 (3d Cir. 2008). Extraordinary circumstances exist “where there are ‘affirmative
acts of fraud,’ where there is a network of misrepresentations over an extended course of’
dcaling
01
wheie ‘particular plaintiffs aie especially ulnerable “jçj at 300 (citing Kur,v
‘
Phila, Elec, Co., 96 F.3d 1544, 1553 (3d Cir, 1996)).
The facts asserted by Plaintiff in the Complaint unsuccessfully attempt to demonstrate
either a network of misrepresentations by Defendants or that Plaintiff was particularly vulnerable
in order to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances prong enumerated in çll. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants made repeated errors in connection with calculating his benefits and that Plaintiff
was especially vulnerable because he was relying on the inaccurate information in determining
whether or not to retire. (Compi. ¶I 55. 56, 57). Defendants first misrepresented the amount of
Plaintiffs benefits in 2001, when Plaintiff was considering whether or not to retire. (P1. Opp’n
Br. 21). Further. Plaintiff argues that each monthly retirement check of’ $5,901.75, sent to him by
Defendants from December 2001 until Defendants notified Plaintiff of the miscalculation in
2010, constituted a reaffirmation of the misrepresentations and miscalculations that occurred in
9
2001. (P1. Opp’n Br. 24). However, as Defendants point out in their Reply Brief, the recirculation
of the same pension benefit calculation is not a network of repeated misrepresentations. g
Grarnm v. Bell Atlantic Mgmt., 983 F. Supp 585 (D.N.J. 1997) (employee could not show
extraordinary circumstances based on “repeated misrepresentations” where he was given the
same mistaken pension benefit calculation multiple times).
As to whether or not Plaintiff was especially vulnerable, it is not necessary to delve into
Defendants argument that extraordinary circumstances exist only in instances of imminent and
life threatening health emergencies because the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint state no more
than mere conclusions that Plaintiff was especially vulnerable. Plaintiff states that he was
‘especially vulnerable at the time when he relied upon the inaccurate information provided to
him by the Defendant Fiduciaries, because he was relying upon this information in determining
whether or not he was in a position to retire” and that defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff was relying on the information they provided.” (Compl. 56). The Court cannot
infer that the act of contemplation as to whether or not to retire renders a party especially
vulnerable without further factual support. If anything, this paragraph of the Complaint speaks to
the second element of an equitable estoppel claim, that Plaintiff reasonably and detrimentally
relied on Defendants representations. However, this assertion does not give any indication of
extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count TI is granted
without prejudice.
Count Ill- Recovery of Plan Benefits, Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§
1132 (a)(1)(B)
In its Opposition Brief, Plaintiff withdraws this Cause of Action. (P1. Opp’n Br. I, fn. I).
Accordingly. this Count is dismissed with prejudice.
To
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I)etèndants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is granted with
prejudice as to Counts I and III and granted without prejudice as to Count II. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
ennis M.
Date:
Orig:
cc:
November, 2012
Clerk
All Counsel of Record
Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.
File
11
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?