Reinwand, Joseph v. Bradley, Lawrence et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting the 10 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lawrence J. Bradley, Dennis F. Quebe, John Grau, Salvatore J. Chilia and Lonnie R. Stephenson. Plaintiff Joseph Reinwand's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED and the individual defendants are DISMISSED from this case. Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's jury demand, dkt. # 12 , is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/5/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JOSEPH REINWAND,
OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-538-bbc
v.
LAWRENCE J. BRADLEY, DENNIS F. QUEBE,
JOHN GRAU, SALVATORE J. CHILIA, LONNIE R. STEPHENSON
and NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this civil action, pro se plaintiff Joseph Reinwand, a prisoner at the Columbia
Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, is bringing claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
pension plan of his previous employer, as well as its administrator and trustees. Now before
the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim should be dismissed because defendants
are not government actors and plaintiff’s ERISA claim should be dismissed as to the
individual defendants. Dkt. #10. Defendants have also moved to strike plaintiff’s jury
demand from his complaint. Dkt. #12. I am granting both motions.
With respect to plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, plaintiff makes no attempt to explain
why he could bring a claim for violation of his “civil rights” against a private entity or non1

governmental actor. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained to plaintiff
in a previous lawsuit he brought against some of the same defendants, a claim under § 1983
against these defendants “is frivolous,” because “only ‘state actors’ can be liable under §
1983" and defendants are not state actors. Reinwand v. National Electrical Benefit Fund,
683 F. App’x 516, 517 (7th Cir. 2017). Therefore, I will dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
With respect to plaintiff’s ERISA claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B),
defendants argue that only the plan itself, and not the individual defendants, are proper
defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has stated that a cause of action
for “benefits due” under § 1132(a)(1)(B) “must be brought against the party having the
obligation to pay.” Larson v. United Healthcare Insurance Co., 723 F.3d 905, 913 (7th Cir.
2013). “Typically the plan owes the benefits and is the right defendant.” Id. In some
circumstances, however, an individual or entity other than the plan may be an appropriate
defendant to a claim for benefits, such as where an entity other than the plan has the
obligation to pay benefits or where the employer and plans are closely intertwined. Id.
(allowing plaintiff to sue insurance company that was responsible for making benefit
decisions and paying claims); Mein v. Carus Corp., 241 F.3d 581, 584–85 (7th Cir. 2001)
(allowing plaintiff to sue his employer to recover ERISA benefits because employer and plan
were closely intertwined); Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 128 F.3d 549, 551 (7th
Cir. 1997) (permitting plaintiff to sue employer to recover ERISA benefits because plan
documents referred to employer and plan interchangeably).
In this instance, however, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not support any

2

basis for bringing a claim against the individual defendants. His allegations do not suggest
that the individual defendants are obligated to pay benefits or that the plan itself is
interchangeable with the individuals.

Additionally, unlike in plaintiff’s previous case,

Reinwand v. National Electrical Benefit Fund et al., 14-cv-845-bbc, plaintiff is not bringing
a claim under § 1132(c)(1), for which a plan administrator would be an appropriate
defendant. In this case, plaintiff has raised only a claim for benefits, for which the plan is
the appropriate defendant.

Therefore, I will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the

individual defendants.
Finally, because I am dismissing plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, I also will grant defendants’
motion to strike plaintiff’s request for a jury trial. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is an
ERISA claim for benefits under 1132(a)(1)(B), and there is no right to a jury trial on ERISA
claims. Patton v. MFS/Sun Life Financial Distributors, Inc., 480 F.3d 478, 484 (7th Cir.
2007) (“the plaintiff has no right to a jury trial” in ERISA case); McDougall v. Pioneer
Ranch Ltd. Partnership , 494 F.3d 571, 575–76 (7th Cir.2007) (“[T]here is no right to a
jury trial because ERISA’s antecedents are equitable, not legal.”).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lawrence J. Bradley, Dennis F. Quebe,
John Grau, Salvatore J. Chilia and Lonnie R. Stephenson, dkt. #10, is GRANTED. Plaintiff
Joseph Reinwand’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED and the individual

3

defendants are DISMISSED from this case.
2. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand, dkt. #12, is GRANTED.
Entered this 5th day of February, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4