Franklin et al v. DeVry Education Group Inc.

Filing 30

Memorandum Opinion and Order that the Court GRANTS defendant DeVry's motions to dismiss (doc. 16 , 29 ) as unopposed. Defendant DeVry's earlier motion to dismiss (doc. 4 ) is DENIED as moot. The Court also GRANTS defendant Met Life's motion to dismiss (doc. 28 ), without prejudice, as unopposed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 7/16/15. (M,De)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SARA FRANKLIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DeVRY EDUC. GROUP, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14CV2495

Magistrate Judge K. McHargh

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

The plaintiffs, Sara Franklin, individually as Administrator of the Estate
of Andrew D. Franklin, and also on behalf of the minor child Kamara C.
Franklin (collectively, “Franklin”), filed an amended complaint in this court
against defendants, DeVry Education Group, LLC (“DeVry”), and Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (“Met Life”). (Doc. 10.) The case had originally been
filed in the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas, and had been
removed to this court. (Doc. 1.)
The amended complaint alleges nine counts against the defendants:
1) Breach of the employment agreement between DeVry and the
decedent Andrew D. Franklin;
2) DeVry negligently, recklessly, intentionally or maliciously
breached its duty to plaintiffs by failing to properly process the
decedent’s election of supplemental life insurance benefits;

2
3) DeVry negligently, recklessly, intentionally or maliciously
breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs by failing to properly
process the decedent’s election of supplemental life insurance
benefits;
4) DeVry actions and failure to act as alleged above harmed
plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial;
5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B);
6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B);
7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B);
8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, pursuant to ERISA §§ 502(a)(1)(B)
and (c)(1), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and (c)(1); and,
9) Civil conspiracy.
(Doc. 10.)
The court held a Case Management Conference on April 9, 2015. At the
conference, the court ordered that dispositive motions shall not be filed before
the close of discovery without leave of court, with the exceptions set forth
therein. (Doc. 27.) Specifically, the court ordered, as jointly agreed by the
parties, that April 30, 2015, would be the deadline for filing dispositive motions
relating to plaintiffs’ alleged failure to exhaust, and the jurisdiction of the court.
The deadline for filing dispositive motions on the administrative record was set
for August 1, 2015. (Doc. 27.)

3
Met Life’s Motion to Dismiss
Subsequently, defendant Met Life filed a motion to dismiss on April 21,
2015. (Doc. 28.) Met Life moves to dismiss the ERISA claims in the amended
complaint. (Doc. 28, at 5.) Met Life argues that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by
the failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the ERISA plan. (Doc.
28, at 5-8.) Met Life also moves to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs cannot
maintain claims for breach of fiduciary duty. (Doc. 28, at 9-10.)
Met Life also contends that the state law claim for civil conspiracy (count
9) of the amended complaint is preempted. (Doc. 28, at 10; see doc. 16.)
Thus, Met Life moves for plaintiffs’ claims to be dismissed without
prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 28, at 1.)

DeVry’s Motion(s) to Dismiss
Defendant DeVry filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2015, moving to
dismiss the claims arising under ERISA for the reasons set forth in Met Life’s
motion. (Doc. 29, at 1.)
DeVry had also filed two motions to dismiss before the Case Management
Conference was held. The motion filed on Nov. 19, 2014 (doc. 4), is DENIED as
moot, because the plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint.
After the amended complaint was filed, DeVry filed a motion to dismiss
the common law claims (counts 1-4, and 9) as preempted by ERISA. (Doc. 16, at

4
4-8.) That motion was held in abeyance, pending the scheduling of the case
management conference. (Doc. 19.)

Status Conference of July 16, 2015
On July 16, 2015, the court held a status conference via telephone. At
that conference, the plaintiffs advised the court that they would not oppose the
motion(s) to dismiss. The plaintiffs advised that they intend to pursue their
administrative remedies under the ERISA plan.
Therefore the court GRANTS defendant DeVry’s motions to dismiss (doc.
16, 29) as unopposed. DeVry’s earlier motion to dismiss (doc. 4) is DENIED as
moot. The court also GRANTS defendant Met Life’s motion to dismiss (doc. 28),
without prejudice, as unopposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 16, 2015

/s/ Kenneth S. McHargh
Kenneth S. McHargh
United States Magistrate Judge