Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00918/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00918-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Levanna C. Traylor, On Behalf of Herself

and All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Avnet, Inc.; Avnet Pension Plan, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0918-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This is a proposed class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended in

scattered sections of 29 U.S.C.). Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the United States

District Court for the District of Southern Ohio on September 25, 2007, and defendants

answered on November 14, 2007. The action was transferred to this court on May 13, 2008.

The court now has before it plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint

(doc. 55), defendants’ response (doc. 57), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 58).

The lodged proposed amended complaint would add several named plaintiffs and

several claims. Because the original complaint has long been answered, plaintiff may amend

her complaint only with the consent of the opposing party or with leave of the court. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.

However, in assessing the propriety of leave to amend, we consider the following factors:

undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party. Texaco,

Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 2:08-cv-00918-FJM Document 59 Filed 07/28/08 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 -

Amendment will not cause undue delay. Though this action was filed over ten months

ago, it has only been in this district two-and-a-half months and has not advanced beyond the

answer stage. There is no allegation of bad faith. Defendants do not precisely allege that

amendment would be futile or prejudicial, but they do contend that plaintiff’s proposed

amended complaint is “defective” because it “fails to provide adequate notice of the relief

sought therein.” Response at 1. Further, defendants assert that they would not oppose

amendment “if the proposed plaintiffs were to correct this defect.” Id. 

The amended complaint, in which plaintiff alleges that defendants systematically

underpaid employee retirement benefits, contains a prayer for, among other things, “all relief

under ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).” Lodged Proposed Amended Complaint at 40.

Not surprisingly, that section of ERISA provides for recovery of benefits due under an

employee benefit plan, enforcement of rights under the terms of a plan, clarification of rights

to future plan benefits, and statutory penalties in certain instances. The possible remedies

are broad, but defendants provide no authority that the proposed plaintiffs are required to be

more specific in their prayer for relief at this juncture.

We disagree with defendants’ contention that the broad prayer for relief renders the

proposed amended complaint insufficient under Rule 8(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. Although Rule

8(a)(3) requires that a complaint contain “a demand for the relief sought,” the demand for

relief “is not itself a part of the plaintiff’s claim.” Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762

(7th Cir. 2002). Therefore, failure to specify relief to which a plaintiff is entitled would not

warrant dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. Id.

Defendants rely on Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, Inc., 260 F.3d 1089

(9th Cir. 2001), in which the court held that in certain circumstances the plaintiff must put

the defendant on notice of the relief he seeks. But that case is very different from ours.

Seven Words concerned a claim for injunctive relief, apparently mooted once that relief

became unavailable. Id. at 1092–95. But the plaintiff, whose complaint contained a general

prayer for relief, contended that there was still a live controversy because money damages

might be available. Id. at 1095. The court disagreed, declining to construe the complaint

Case 2:08-cv-00918-FJM Document 59 Filed 07/28/08 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

- 3 -

as requesting money damages. Id. at 1098. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not

claim damages only “after various representations that it was seeking only declaratory and

injunctive relief, after a motion to dismiss, and at the eleventh hour.” Id. at 1098.

According to the court in Seven Words, decisions generally “go to great lengths to

underscore the breadth of notice pleadings,” id. at 1098 (citing Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d

668 (9th Cir. 2001)), but “the principle is not without limits,” id. However, in that case, the

court was concerned with a unique situation, namely “late-in-the-day damage claims,” id. at

1097, when “failure to ask for particular relief substantially prejudiced the opposing party,”

id. at 1098 (quoting Rental Dev. Corp. v. Lavery, 304 F.2d 839, 842 (9th Cir. 1962)). There,

the prayer for relief was too specific, not too broad. Nothing in Seven Words suggests that

a specific prayer for relief is a prerequisite for an adequate complaint. 

Though defendants allege that the proposed amended complaint fails to provide them

with “adequate notice,” Response ¶ 4, they do not specify how they believe the prayer for

relief is prejudicial. If defendants believe that the proposed amended complaint “is so vague

or ambiguous that [they] cannot reasonably prepare a response,” then the proper approach

would be a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. But at

least with respect to the prayer for relief, we do not readily find the complaint vague or

ambiguous. This is an ERISA action seeking the kinds of relief contemplated by ERISA.

For the forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (doc. 55). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

directing the clerk to file plaintiff’s lodged proposed amended complaint (doc. 56). Pursuant

 to Rule 15(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., defendants shall have 10 days after the service of the

amended complaint in which to file an answer. 

DATED this 28th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00918-FJM Document 59 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 3