Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00903/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00903-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Gonzales, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc., a Delaware

corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-04-903-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Phelps Dodge has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure

to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Docs. ## 69, 74. Plaintiffs

oppose the motion, arguing that ERISA affords them the remedies they seek. Doc. #71.

I. Legal Standard.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) “is properly granted when,

taking all the allegations in the non-moving parties’ pleadings as true, the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. County of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th

Cir. 1998); see Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004)

(stating that in ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion the court must accept as true all allegations in

the plaintiff’s complaint and treat as false the allegations in the defendant’s answer that

contradict the plaintiff’s allegations). In other words, dismissal under Rule 12(c) is

inappropriate if the facts as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchants Home

Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1995).

Case 2:04-cv-00903-DGC Document 78 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

II. Analysis.

Plaintiffs seek a civil penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) for Defendant’s alleged

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(1). Doc. #13. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant reduced their

rights to severance pay without providing the notice required under § 1024. Id. Defendant

denies this allegation. Doc. #14.

Both parties agree that the remedy for a § 1024(b)(1) violation lies within the civil

penalties outlined in § 1132(c). Defendant argues, however, that no remedy is available for

Plaintiffs’ § 1024 claim because a remedy for the violation alleged by Plaintiffs is not found

within § 1132, and that interpretation of ERISA’s remedial provisions is strictly limited.

Doc. # 69. 

Section 1132 does not expressly provide a remedy for the type of § 1024 violation

alleged by Plaintiffs. Section 1132(c) provides for a civil penalty to be assessed by the

Secretary of Labor against any plan administrator that fails or refuses to file an annual report

with the Secretary according to the specifications of § 1021(b)(4). Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant failed to notify plan beneficiaries about termination of severance benefits

according to the specifications of § 1024(b)(1). There is a significant discrepancy between

the language of the statute and the interpretation argued by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs suggest that the “spirit of ERISA” and the “broad language” of § 1132(c)

support a remedy for violations of § 1024(a)(1). Doc. # 71 (citing Hillis v. Waukesha Title

Co., 576 F.2d 1103,1108 (7th Cir. 1983)). To the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear

that ERISA remedies shall not be found where they have not been expressed. Mertens v.

Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248 (1993). The Court has emphasized the statute’s carefully crafted

and detailed enforcement scheme as “strong evidence that Congress did not intend to

authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.” Id. at 254 (citing

Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 147 (1985)). See Great-West Life &

Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209 (2002) (courts are especially reluctant to

tamper with the ERISA enforcement scheme by extending remedies not specifically

authorized by its text). Russell explicitly repudiates the use of the Congressional Committee

Case 2:04-cv-00903-DGC Document 78 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Given this ruling, the Court need not address whether § 1024 applies to a termination

of plan benefits. 

- 3 -

Reports’ version of the bill upon which the Hillis court bases its expansive reading of § 1132.

Russell, 473 U.S. at 146 (stating that before passing the bill, Congress deleted language

referring to legal relief).

The Supreme Court has also explicitly limited the relief available for a breach of

fiduciary duties under ERISA to those equitable remedies provided in the statute. Mertens,

508 U.S. at 255-61. The other relief requested by Plaintiffs – treble the amount of severance

pay – is legal in nature and falls outside the purview of ERISA’s remedial scheme. Doc. #71

at 11-13. 

In short, “‘[t]he federal judiciary will not engraft a remedy on a statute, no matter how

salutary, that Congress did not intend to provide.’” Russell, 473 U.S. at 145 (quoting

California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297 (1981)). Therefore, as a matter of law, there

is no remedy available to Plaintiffs for Defendant’s alleged violation of § 1024. The motion

for judgment on the pleadings will be granted.1

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,

(Doc. #69), is granted.

2. Fictitious Defendants John Does, ABC Corporations, and ABC Partnerships are

dismissed. 

3. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00903-DGC Document 78 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 3