Ruffin-Walker v. Mil Metal Products et al
Filing
33
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 11/21/13 granting 25 Motion to Quash; granting 26 Motion to Quash; granting 28 Motion to Dismiss. Finally, ordering that this action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WANDA M. WALKER-RUFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 13-C-0529
MILWAUKEE METAL PRODUCTS, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
As I noted in my last order in this case, plaintiff Wanda Walker-Ruffin, proceeding
pro se, has filed a mostly incomprehensible complaint against various defendants. The
only potentially viable federal claim that I can find in the complaint is an ERISA claim to
recover benefits due under an employee-benefits plan. The proper defendants to this
claim would be the plan itself and maybe also the plan’s fiduciaries and any insurer who
issued a policy associated with the plan. See Larson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 723
F.3d 905, 911 (7th Cir. 2013). The complaint suggests that the plan is known as the
“Milwaukee Metal Products Profit-Sharing 401(k) Plan.” ECF No. 1 at p. 3 of 7. In my last
order, I noted that it was possible that this entity, along with two other persons identified
in the complaint, Betty Jane Parrot and the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund, might be
proper defendants to an ERISA claim to recover employee benefits.
After I issued my last order, the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund filed a motion
to dismiss. The Fund argues that it has not been properly served with process, that the
complaint fails to state a claim for relief against it, and that an order of the Dane County
Circuit Court bars the plaintiff from pursuing claims against it in this court. I will grant the
Fund’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a claim for relief
against it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Upon further review of the complaint, I realize that
plaintiff has not alleged that the Fund issued an insurance policy associated with any
employee-benefit plan. Rather, the allegations in the complaint concerning the Fund relate
to plaintiff’s claim involving workers-compensation benefits. Because I have dismissed any
claims involving workers-compensation benefits, the Fund will be dismissed from this case.
Also before the court are motions filed by EMJAY Corporation and Chittenden,
Murday & Novotny LLC. Plaintiff attempted to serve these entities with process, but they
are not named as defendants or otherwise identified in the complaint.
Out of an
abundance of caution, these entities filed motions to quash the purported summonses
instead of simply ignoring them as invalid. Because the entities are not defendants in this
case, the motions to quash the summonses will be granted.
At this point, I must determine what to do with this case. As I noted in my last order,
plaintiff had until September 7, 2013, which was 120 days from the date the complaint was
filed, to complete service of process on the individuals and entities that might be proper
defendants to an ERISA claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Having reviewed the returns of
service that plaintiff filed, I conclude that she has not completed service on such individuals
and entities—i.e., the plan, the plan administrator, or any insurer associated with the plan.
This means that I must either dismiss this action without prejudice or order that service be
made within a specified time. Id. Plaintiff has not requested additional time to complete
service, and because it is not even clear that plaintiff has a viable federal claim, I will not
on my own motion extend the time for service. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice.
2
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund’s motion
to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EMJAY Corporation’s motion to quash is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chittenden, Murday & Novotny LLC’S motion to
quash is GRANTED.
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 21st day of November, 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
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?