Lawson v. Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC Severance Pay Plan
Filing
23
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 14 Motion to Dismiss filed by Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC Severance Pay Plan: The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff against defendant be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/29/2014) (mdf)
'>--N-TO-.IU~~;~~~~~~~~~2~)~;~~~E:~~·->····{
FILED
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
NICKY LAWSON,
§
§
§
VS.
NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS US LLC
SEVERANCE PAY PLAN,
,
D~:rm."
NO. 4:14-CV-814-A
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Before the court for consideration and decision is the
motion of defendant, Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC Severance Pay
Plan, to dismiss the first amended complaint of plaintiff, Nicky
Lawson, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
After having considered such motion, plaintiff's
response thereto, defendant's reply, the first amended complaint,
and pertinent legal authorities, the court has concluded that
such motion should be granted.
1.
Background. and Allegations of First Amended Complaint
This action was filed September 4, 2014, in County Court at
Law No. 1 of Tarrant County, Texas.
On October 6, 2014,
defendant filed its notice of removal, removing this action to
the Dallas division of this court.
\
...l
§
§
§
Defendant.
'--
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
By _ _-::c
_
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
I
rDEC'29.
Because the action should
have been removed to the Fort Worth division, it was transferred
to this division on October 7, 2014.
On October 14, 2014, the
court issued an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that would comply, inter alia, with the requirements of
Rule 8{a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminding
plaintiff of the interpretations given by the Supreme Court to
the Rule 8{a) requirements in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544
(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009).
On
October 24, 2014, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
Defendant's motion to dismiss, with supporting brief and
appendix, were filed on November 24, 2014.
Plaintiff filed his
response in opposition, with a supporting brief, on December 15,
2014, to which defendant replied, with a supporting appendix, on
December 19, 2014.
In summary form, plaintiff alleged in his first amended
complaint that:
Plaintiff, a longtime employee of Nokia Siemens Networks US
LLC ("NSN") and a predecessor company, was terminated from his
emploYment on November 8, 2012.
Plan ("Plan")
Defendant is a Severance Pay
for NSN employees that provided that an employee
who qualifies under the Plan as an "Eligible Employee" was
entitled to severance benefits.
Plaintiff was an Eligible
Employee as defined in the Plan at the time of his termination,
2
and met the Plan's requirements for entitlement to the severance
benefits set forth in the Plan.
After the termination of his employment for NSN, plaintiff
exhausted the administrative remedies available to him under the
Plan. Plaintiff's request for severance benefits was mailed to
the plan administrator on January 7, 2013.
The plan
administrator denied plaintiff's claim by letter dated
February 18, 2013, which informed plaintiff that he could appeal
the denial of benefits within sixty days of the date of the
denial.
Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension of time
to May 9, 2013, to appeal the denial of benefits.
He appealed the denial by a letter that he sent to the plan
administrator on May 9, 2013.
The Plan provided that "an appeal
is deemed denied if no decision has been given to the employee
within sixty days of the appeal, but that the Plan Administrator
may extend that period for an additional sixty days."
4, , 13.
Compl. at
Sixty days from May 9, 2013 expired July 8, 2013.
By
letter dated June 19, 2013, the plan administrator extended the
July 8, 2013 deadline by granting plaintiff the option of
submitting additional information to her for consideration by
July 15, 2013, a date beyond the initial sixty-day period.
Because of this extension and because the plan administrator did
not subsequently issue a decision regarding plaintiff's appeal,
3
plaintiff's appeal was deemed denied on September 6, 2013, the
120th day after plaintiff filed his appeal on May 9, 2013.
at 4-5,
~
Id.
13.
Plaintiff sought recovery under 29 U.S.C.
§
1132(a} (I) (B) of
his damages based on defendant's failure to pay severance
benefits to him, plus attorney's fees, costs, and pre- and postjUdgment interest.
II.
The Ground of Defendant's Motion,
Plaintiff's Response Thereto, and Defendant's Reply
A.
The Ground of the Motion
Defendant's motion urged only one ground--that plaintiff's
action to recover benefits was barred by plaintiff's failure to
file his action within the applicable time period.!
Defendant's
brief explained that the Plan provided that "no claim legal or
equitable action regarding a claim for Severance Benefits under
the Plan, including an action under section 502(a} of ERISA, may
lDefendant added in its brief in support of its motion, as a ground of the motion that plaintiff
failed to assert a viable claim for violation of29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(l)(B) against defendant. The court is
not giving effect to that ground. Not only was it not stated in the motion itself, the court would be
required to consider material inappropriate for consideration on the motion to dismiss if the court were to
entertain that ground.
4
be filed in any court of law more than one year following the
denial or deemed denial of [the employee's] appeal."2
Supp. of Mot. at 3.
Br. in
Defendant maintained that plaintiff's appeal
would have been deemed denied on July 8, 2013, had the plan
administrator not given plaintiff an extension to July 15, 2013,
to submit additional information, and that because of that
extension the deemed denial occurred on July 15, 2013, more than
one year before the September 4, 2014 date when plaintiff filed
this action in the County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County,
Texas.
B.
The Response in Opposition
In his response in opposition, plaintiff persisted in his
pleaded claim that the deemed denial of his administrative appeal
occurred on September 6, 2013, 120 days after he filed his appeal
on May 9, 2013.
While plaintiff objected to the consideration by
the court in support of the motion to dismiss of the plan
administrator's letter of June 19, 2013, informing plaintiff that
he had until July 15, 2013, for the filing of additional
information, he argued in his response that the letter itself
established that the deadline for the plan administrator to make
a decision before there was a deemed denial of his appeal was
2Section 1132(a) of Title 29 of the United States Code is a codification of section 502(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
5
extended from sixty days to 120 days after the date of the
appeal.
Plaintiff acknowledged in his response that the deemed
denial would have occurred on July 8, 2013, sixty days after the
date of plaintiff's appeal, had it not been for the June 19, 2013
letter, but he argued that the plan administrator's letter
extended the sixty-day period to a 120-day period by virtue of a
provision in the Plan saying that "[i]f because of special
circumstances the Plan Administrator cannot make a decision
within the 60-day period, the Plan Administrator may extend the
period in which to make the decision up to 120 days after receipt
of the appeal." Br. in SUpp. of Resp. at 5.
Plaintiff called the
court's attention in his response to the provision in the claim
document saying that no claim "may be filed in any court of law
more than one year following the denial or deemed denial of your
appeal."
rd. at 5-6.
Plaintiff also argued that defendant has improperly
requested the court to consider the contents of the plan
administrator's June 19, 2013 letter and the other items included
in the appendix submitted by defendant in support of its motion
to dismiss, asserting that none of those items is proper for
consideration by the court in evaluating the merit of a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.
6
C.
Defendant's Reply
Defendant repeated in its reply its position that at best
from plaintiff's standpoint the plan administrator's June 19,
2013 letter extended the deemed-denial date from July 8, 2013, to
July 15, 2013, and that nothing the plan administrator said in
the letter suggested that she was extending the period in which
to make a decision beyond July 15, 2013.
As to plaintiff's argument that the court should not
consider in ruling on defendant's motion items contained in its
supporting appendix, defendant called the court's attention to
court decisions authorizing the court to consider in ruling on
such a motion to dismiss documents that are referred to in the
complaint and are central to plaintiff's claim.
Reply at 2.
And, defendant then pointed out how each of the documents upon
which it relied in support of the motion to dismiss is referenced
either generally or specifically in plaintiff's complaint as an
item central to his claim.
III.
Analysis
A.
Legal Principles Applicable to Consideration of Defendant's
Motion
Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, in a general way, the applicable standard of pleading.
It requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement
7
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,"
Fed. R. eiv. P. ala) (2), "in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,"
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis
omitted).
Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual
allegations, the "showing" contemplated by Rule a requires the
plaintiff to do more than simply allege legal conclusions or
recite the elements of a cause of action.
555 & n.3.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Thus, while a court must accept all of the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, it need not credit bare
legal conclusions that are unsupported by any factual
underpinnings.
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 669 ("While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must
be supported by factual allegations.").
Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), the facts pleaded must allow
the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is
plausible.
Id.
To allege a plausible right to relief, the facts
pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are merely
consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient.
U.S. at 566-69.
Twombly, 550
"Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief . . .
[is] a context-specific task
8
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is properly
granted based on a limitations bar if plaintiff's pleadings and
documents that are appropriate to be considered in rUling on the
motion to dismiss establish a limitations bar as a matter of law.
Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359; 366 (5th Cir. 2003).
Case
law establishes that "documents that a defendant attaches to a
motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings, if they
are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to
[the] claim."
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d
496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted) .
B.
Plaintiff's Pleading and the Documents Properly Considered a
Part of It Establish That Plaintiff's Claim is Barred by
Limitations
Plaintiff's response limits the issues that the court must
consider in evaluating the merits of defendant's claim that a
limitations defense has been established for purposes of the
motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff does not contend that the Plan's
time limit for filing an action is not valid and enforceable, nor
does plaintiff contend that a limitations bar cannot be a valid
ground for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
9
Rather, plaintiff limits his responsive contentions to (1)
the court cannot go outside the allegations of his pleading to
determine whether there is a limitations bar,
(2) the items
contained in defendant's appendix to its motion are not items the
court can consider in rUling on the motion to dismiss,
(3) even
if the court were to consider those items, they establish that
the deemed denial did not occur until 120 days after plaintiff
filed his administrative appeal, with the result that the filing
of this action on September 4, 2014, was timely.
The court's
analysis now focuses on those three contentions.
1.
The Items in Plaintiff's Appendix are Properly
Considered a Part of Plaintiff's Pleading
The items contained in defendant's appendix that plaintiff
says the court should not consider in rUling on the motion to
dismiss include (1) the Plan Document and Summary Plan
Description that constitutes the text of the Plan, App. in Supp.
of Mot. at 8-15,
(2) the letter from plaintiff, through his
attorneys, dated May 9, 2013, appealing from the administrative
denial of plaintiff's claim for severance benefits, id. at 27-37,
and (3) the plan administrator's letter providing additional
material to plaintiff, through his counsel, and informing
plaintiff, through counsel, that if plaintiff wished to submit
additional information in support of his appeal from the denial
10
of his severance benefits, he must do so no later than July 15,
2013, id. at 39-40.
A review of the allegations of plaintiff's first amended
complaint discloses that each of those items was mentioned in the
complaint, and that each is central to plaintiff's claim for
severance benefits, with the result that they are to be
considered a part of plaintiff's pleading in the evaluation of
the merits of defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Plan Document and Summary Plan Description is at the
very heart of plaintiff's pleading.
His claim is based in its
entirety on that document and plan description.
~~ 7-17.
Compl. at 2-6,
The May 9, 2013 letter from plaintiff to the plan
administrator appealing from the denial of his claim for
severance benefits was an integral part of plaintiff's pleaded
claims.
rd. at 4,
~
12.
The plan administrator's June 19, 2013
letter likewise was an integral part of plaintiff's pleaded
claims.
rd. at 4-5,
~
13.
Thus, each of those items is deemed
to be a part of plaintiff's pleading to be considered in the
evaluation of and ruling on the motion to dismiss.
11
2.
Pertinent Language in the Plan Document and Summary
Plan Description
The "deemed-denial-of-appeal" argument upon which plaintiff
relies in his complaint was predicated on the language of the
Plan set forth below:
The Plan Administrator will provide you with
written notice of his/her decision on your appeal
within GO days after receipt of such appeal. If
because of special circumstances, the Plan
Administrator cannot make a decision within this GO-day
period, the Plan Administrator may extend the period in
which to make the decision up to 120 days after receipt
of the appeal. The Plan Administrator will provide you
with written notice of the extension, before the end of
the GO-day period, which indicates the special
circumstances requiring the extension and the expected
decision date.
The Plan Administrator will provide you with
written notice of its decision on your appeal. If
written notice of the Plan Administrator's decision
regarding your appeal is not given to you within this
GO-day period (extended review period), your appeal
will be deemed denied. Except as may be otherwise
required by law, the decision of the Plan Administrator
on your appeal will be binding on all parties.
App. in Supp. of Mot. at 12 (emphasis added) .
The requirement that any legal or equitable action regarding
a claim for severance benefits under the Plan be filed within one
year following the deemed denial is included in the Plan language
set forth below:
Completion of the claims procedures described
above is a condition precedent to commencing any legal
or equitable action regarding a claim for Severance
Benefits under the Plan. However, the Plan
12
Administrator may waive this completion requirement.
No claim legal or equitable action regarding a claim
for Severance Benefits under the Plan, including an
action under section 502(a) of ERISA, may be filed in
any court of law more than one year following the
denial or deemed denial of your appeal. All
determinations by the Plan Administrator shall be final
and binding on all parties.
Id. at 13
3.
(emphasis added) .
The Plan Administrator's June 19, 2013 Letter Did Not
Extend the Period to Make a Decision for Another Sixty
Days
The potentially pertinent language in the plan
administrator's June 19, 2013 letter is as follows:
Please note that although I had granted permission
for [plaintiff] to submit any documentation to my
office by May 9th, 2013, I did not receive your letter
dated May 9, 2013 until May 10th, 2013. Despite
[plaintiff's] failure to comply with the extension
date, I will provide [plaintiff] one last opportunity
to provide relevant information regarding the initial
denial of his severance benefits.
* * * * *
Finally, if [plaintiff] wishes to submit any
additional information to me in support of the appeal
of his denial of severance benefits, please make sure
that the items are delivered to me no later than
July 15, 2013. No further extensions will be granted
regarding this matter.
App. in Supp. of Mot. at 39-40.
There is no reasonable reading of the June 19, 2013 letter
that would allow it to be interpreted as an extension of time
beyond July 15, 2013, for the making of a decision on plaintiff's
13
appeal.
The letter makes clear that the extension of time given
to plaintiff was for the filing of additional information, not
for the making by the plan administrator of a decision, and that
no further extensions would be granted "regarding this matter."
The fact that the extended deadline for providing additional
information was a few days beyond the sixty-day deemed denial
date does not mean that the deemed denial date was extended
another sixty days.
It means, at most from plaintiff's
standpoint, that the deemed denial date was extended to July 15,
2013.
Consequently, the pleading of the plaintiff, when
considered together with the documents that are considered to be
a part of the pleading, affirmatively establishes that
plaintiff's action was barred by the one-year limitations period
established by the Plan--this action was not filed within one
year after the deemed denial of plaintiff's appeal.
IV.
Order
For the reasons stated above,
The court ORDERS that plaintiff's motion to dismiss be, and
is hereby, grantedj and,
The court further ORDERS that all claims and causes of
action asserted by plaintiff against
hereby, dismissed.
SIGNED December 29, 2014.
be, and are
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?