Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01413/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01413-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES DIMRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL 

PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-01413-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Former NFL cornerback Charles Dimry challenges the denial of disability benefits by the 

Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan and NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan 

(collectively, “the Plan”). Dkt. No. 38. He alleges ERISA claims for: (1) recovery of total and 

permanent employee benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), (2) equitable relief for breach of 

fiduciary duty, under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), and (3) failure to produce documents, under 29 

U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed the claim for equitable relief with 

leave to amend. Dkt. No. 33. Following the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Plan moved

again to dismiss for failure to state a claim for equitable relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 39. 

The Court heard oral argument on September 22, 2016 and dismisses with prejudice claim two for 

equitable relief. 

The parties agree, as they must under the law, that a breach of fiduciary duty claim 

addresses injuries to the ERISA plan as a whole, but not injuries suffered by an individual 

participant. Wise v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 600 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2010). For this 

reason, Dimry’s claim in the original complaint for equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty 

under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) was dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 33. 

Case 3:16-cv-01413-JD Document 53 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

The amendments now before the Court do not save this claim. By his own admission, 

Dimry added just a few new allegations in the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 43 at 3. 

Stripping away the purely conclusory statements and allegations that are based on his individual 

claim alone, Dimry alleges only that: the Plan holds regular specialist meetings; the Plan admitted 

in a letter that it “uniformly” accepts the reports of doctors hired by the NFL; in an ERISA lawsuit 

filed in another district and unrelated to this case, the complaint alleges that a doctor hired by the 

Plan disagreed with the player’s treating doctors to conclude that the player could engage in 

sedentary work; and the Plan has publically stated that if there is a difference of opinion among 

doctors, it refers cases to the “Medical Advisory Physician.” Dkt. No. 38 ¶¶ 19-22. Even when 

treated most favorably to the plaintiff, these allegations simply do not plausibly suggest that the 

Plan on a uniform basis is “misusing retained-physicians to withhold benefits from injured 

players, an abuse of the ERISA appeal process.” Dkt. No. 43 at 2; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009). The Amended Complaint is utterly devoid of anything close to factual allegations 

sufficient to meet the standards under Rule 8 for the equitable relief claim to proceed. 

The final question is whether Dimry is entitled to yet another try at alleging an adequate 

claim on this point. The Court’s discretion to dismiss with prejudice is “particularly broad” after 

prior leave to amend has been granted. Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 

2013). Dimry has already had more than one opportunity to state a claim for breach of fiduciary 

duty under ERISA, and in response to the Court’s inquiry at oral argument, Dimry’s counsel could 

not articulate what new allegations he might add. Consequently, Count II of the First Amended 

Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01413-JD Document 53 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 2