Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02416/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND GONZABA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2416- IEG (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. Nos. 13, 14]

vs.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS, et

al., 

Defendants.

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint with

prejudice. For the reasons below, Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Raymond Gonzaba, proceeding pro se, alleges violations of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.

(“ERISA”), and related common law claims for negligence, breach of contract,

unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

all of which are premised on the purported underpayment of his deceased father’s

pension benefits to his now deceased mother. [Doc. No. 1.] Defendants, the pension

funds who purportedly underpaid benefits to Plaintiff’s mother, move to dismiss on

grounds of, inter alia, preemption and lack of standing. [See Doc. Nos. 13, 14.] 

DISCUSSION

- 1 - 12cv2416

Case 3:12-cv-02416-IEG-WMC Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 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

I. Plaintiff’s Common Law Claims Are Preempted by ERISA

 “ERISA section 502(a) contains a comprehensive scheme of civil remedies to

enforce ERISA’s provisions.” Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1084 (9th Cir.

2009) (internal quotation omitted). “A state cause of action that would fall within

the scope of this scheme of remedies is preempted as conflicting with the intended

exclusivity of the ERISA remedial scheme.” Id. The scope of the ERISA remedial

scheme extends to any “civil action . . . to recover benefits due . . . under the plan.” 

ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. §1132. Because Plaintiff’s common law claims seek to

recover such benefits purportedly due, they are preempted by ERISA and therefore

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

II. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Prosecute Claims Under ERISA

To state a claim under ERISA, “a plaintiff must fall within one of ERISA’s []

specific civil enforcement provisions, each of which details who may bring suit and

what remedies are available.” Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 1072. “No one except plan

participants, beneficiaries, fiduciaries, and the Secretary of Labor is expressly

authorized [under those provisions] to bring claims in federal court.” Cripps v. Life

Ins. Co. of North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff does not

qualify under any of these categories. Plainly, he is neither the Secretary of Labor

nor a plan fiduciary.1

 The only participant2 alleged is his deceased father and the

1 ERISA § 3(21), 29 U.S.C. 1002(21) defines “fiduciary” as a person who (i) exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.

2 ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7) defines “participant” as any employee or former employee of an employer, or any member or former member of an employee organization, who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such employer or members of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit.

- 2 - 12cv2416

Case 3:12-cv-02416-IEG-WMC Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 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

only beneficiary,3 his deceased mother. [See Doc. No. 1.] As Plaintiff does not fall

within any of the categories specified in ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions, he

lacks standing to prosecute claims thereunder. See Cripps, 980 F.2d at 1265. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ERISA claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED

and Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

3 ERISA § 3(8), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8) defines “beneficiary” as “a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of any employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder.” 

- 3 - 12cv2416

Case 3:12-cv-02416-IEG-WMC Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3