Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01390/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01390-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America Pension Plan
Defendant
Bank of America, NA
Defendant
Michael L. Rodrigues
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL L. RODRIGUES, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF 

AMERICA PENSION PLAN and DOES 1-

50, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 16-1390 CW 

ORDER ON MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MOTION 

TO STRIKE 

(Docket No. 8) 

 

 Defendants Bank of America, NA (BOFA) and Bank of America 

Pension Plan (Plan) filed this motion to dismiss Plaintiff Michael 

L. Rodrigues's Complaint and to strike his request for a jury 

trial. The Court vacates the hearing and GRANTS this motion. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Rodrigues's Allegations 

 Rodrigues worked at BOFA from July 5, 1982 to June 30, 1988. 

Under the terms of his employment, Defendants "provided" Rodrigues 

with a pension plan, which granted him retirement benefits, 

including shares of BOFA stock. Complaint ¶ 9. He is a 

"beneficiary" of the Plan. Id. ¶ 7. 

 On November 9, 2015, Rodrigues requested the following 

documents from Defendants: a summary plan description, all 

financial information showing the balance of Rodrigues's interest 

in the Plan, and Rodrigues's vested and unvested balances in the 

Plan, both in number of shares and dollar value. Id. ¶ 10. No 

one provided the requested information or documents relating to 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

the Plan. Id. ¶ 11. Instead, “representatives at BOFA” told 

Rodrigues that they "can't locate any record of your employment 

with the bank." Id. 

 Rodrigues filed this Complaint on March 22, 2016. It 

contains three causes of action, all under the Employment 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.: 

denial of benefits, breach of fiduciary duty and failure to 

provide requested documents. He seeks payment of his vested 

interests, the documents he requested, statutory damages, 

restitution, a “declaration of Plaintiff's and Defendants’ 

respective rights and duties” and attorneys’ fees. Complaint at 

6-7. 

II. The Plan 

The Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Bank of America 

is the Bank of America Corporation's pension plan.1 RJN Ex. A, 

Plan at 7. The Bank of America Corporation Corporate Benefits 

Committee is the Plan Administrator. RJN Ex. B, Summary at 69, 

71. 

 1 Under the "incorporation by reference" doctrine, the Court 

may consider documents of undisputed authenticity on which a 

plaintiff's claim depends. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 

(9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the district court properly 

considered undisputed documents attached to a motion to dismiss 

that described terms of a group health insurance plan where 

plaintiff alleged membership in the plan)). Rodrigues does not 

dispute the authenticity of the documents attached to Defendants' 

Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Docket No. 8-1. The Court 

GRANTS the request as to Exhibits A and B, following Knievel, and 

as to Exhibit C as a matter of public record, see MGIC Indem. 

Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986).

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

The Plan contains a procedure that claimants must follow 

before filing suit in any other forum. Plan at 82-84; Summary at 

23-24. Under this procedure, a claimant must file a written claim 

for benefits. Plan at 82. After the Committee renders a 

decision, a claimant has a right to appeal. Id. From there, a 

claimant has one year following a final decision to file a civil 

suit. Id. at 84.

LEGAL STANDARD 

 A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). On a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint 

does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable 

claim and the grounds on which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the 

complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all 

material allegations as true and construe them in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 

896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). However, this principle is inapplicable 

to legal conclusions. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not 

taken as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

 When granting a motion to dismiss, the court is generally 

required to grant the plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request 

to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 

F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether amendment 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

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 

would be futile, the court examines whether the complaint could be 

amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal "without 

contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original complaint." 

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Denial of Benefits 

Rodrigues first alleges a claim for denial of benefits. A 

claimant must avail himself of a plan’s own internal review 

procedures before bringing suit in federal court. Diaz v. United 

Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th 

Cir. 1995). 

Rodrigues does not argue that he followed the Plan’s review 

procedures. Rather, he argues that he “would have followed the 

claimed administrative procedures had BOFA responded to his 

requests and provided him with the procedures he was required to 

follow.” Docket No. 19, Opp. Br. at 3. Plan participants have a 

duty to inform themselves of the details of their plan. Jordan v. 

Fed. Express Corp., 116 F.3d 1005, 1016 (3d Cir. 1997); Emerson v. 

Bank of Am., N.A., 2011 WL 3844105, at *3 (N.D. Cal.). 

Rodrigues’s lack of knowledge about the Plan’s review procedures 

does not negate the exhaustion requirement. 

Additionally, BOFA, Rodrigues's former employer, is not the 

proper defendant for Rodrigues' claim for benefits. See Madden v. 

ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Emps., 914 F.2d 1279, 

1287 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that ERISA permits suits to 

recover benefits only against the plan and dismissing claim 

against plaintiff's employer). 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 5 

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 

Rodrigues appears to believe that he can exhaust his 

administrative remedies by July 19, 2016. Given the Plan's 

procedure, Rodrigues cannot exhaust this quickly. For this 

reason, the Court will give Rodrigues 180 days to amend his 

Complaint. 

 The Court dismisses this claim against BOFA, without leave to 

amend, because amendment against BOFA would be futile. Because 

Rodrigues has not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim against the Plan, 

with leave to amend. 

II. Breach of Fiduciary Duties 

Defendants argue that the allegations supporting this claim 

are deficient for several reasons: Defendants are not Rodrigues's 

fiduciaries; Defendants’ alleged actions cannot support a breach 

of fiduciary duty claim; and Rodrigues could not obtain the relief 

he seeks in this claim under any of ERISA’s relief provisions. 

A. Fiduciaries 

“ERISA permits suits for breach of fiduciary duty only 

against persons who act as a fiduciary with respect to a plan 

. . . covered by ERISA.” Acosta v. Pac. Enters., 950 F.2d 611, 

617 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended). An ERISA fiduciary “includes 

anyone who exercises discretionary authority over the plan’s 

management, anyone who exercises authority over the management of 

its assets, and anyone having discretionary authority or 

responsibility in the plan’s administration.” Mertens v. Hewitt 

Assocs., 948 F.2d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1002(21)(A)). A person’s “actions, not the official designation 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 6 

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 

of his role, determine whether he enjoys fiduciary status.” 

Acosta, 950 F.2d at 618. 

The Plan cannot be liable for breach of fiduciary duty here. 

See id. (“A plan covered by ERISA cannot, as an entity, act as a 

fiduciary with respect to its own assets. Therefore, a plan 

itself cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty.”). 

Nor are Rodrigues’s allegations sufficient to hold BOFA 

liable. Its “status as employer does not automatically make it 

liable as an ERISA fiduciary.” Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 

903 F.2d 624, 631 (9th Cir. 1990). The Complaint alleges no 

interaction between BOFA and the Plan that would warrant labeling 

BOFA a fiduciary of the Plan. See Mertens, 948 F.2d at 610. 

B. Alleged Breaches of Fiduciary Duty 

The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their 

fiduciary duties in two ways: failing to provide Rodrigues with 

information and withholding his vested interest in the Plan. 

ERISA's fiduciary duty provisions are "primarily concerned with 

protecting the integrity of the plan, which in turn protects all 

beneficiaries, rather than remedying each wrong suffered by 

individual beneficiaries." Parker v. BankAmerica Corp., 50 F.3d 

757, 768 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Rodrigues's alleged 

breaches cannot serve as bases for a breach of fiduciary duty 

claim because any recovery would not benefit the plan as a whole. 

See id. ("Although individual beneficiaries may bring a breach of 

fiduciary duty claim against an ERISA plan administrator, they 

must do so for the benefit of the plan."). 

// 

// 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 7 

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 

C. Relief for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim 

Rodrigues alleges that he is entitled to relief under 29 

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3) for his breach of fiduciary duty 

claim. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) permits a participant or beneficiary 

"to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to 

enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his 

rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan." Section 

1132(a)(3) permits a participant or beneficiary to bring a civil 

action for injunctive or equitable relief. These sections do not 

relate to claims for breach of fiduciary duty to the Plan. 

Section 1109(a), which establishes liability for breach of 

fiduciary duty, permits relief only for a plan itself and not for 

beneficiaries of the plan. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 

473 U.S. 134, 139-44 (1985) ("the entire text of § [1109] 

persuades us that Congress did not intend that section to 

authorize any relief except for the plan itself").

The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim 

against BOFA, with leave to amend to allege, if true, that BOFA is 

a fiduciary of the Plan and to seek a remedy that would benefit 

the Plan as a whole. The Court also dismisses this claim against 

the Plan, without leave to amend, because amendment would be 

futile--the Plan cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty to 

itself.

III. Failure to Provide Plan Documents under 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 1024(b)(4) and 1132(c)(1) 

Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) provides that any 

“administrator” who fails or refuses to comply with a request for 

information “which such administrator is required by this 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 8 

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 

subchapter to furnish to a participant or beneficiary” is 

personally liable for up to one hundred dollars per day. Section 

1024(b)(4) requires an administrator to furnish a copy of the 

“latest updated summary” and “the latest annual report,” among 

other documents, upon written request of any participant or 

beneficiary. 

As explained above, neither Defendant is the Plan’s 

administrator; the administrator is the Committee. Moreover, the 

Complaint fails to allege that Rodrigues submitted any written 

request to the Plan’s administrator. Additionally, it is not 

clear from the Complaint or the briefing that an administrator 

would be required to give to Rodrigues each document he requested 

aside from the summary plan document. 

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to 

dismiss this claim against both BOFA and Bank of America Pension 

Plan, without leave to amend, because amendment would be futile. 

Leave to amend is granted to bring this claim against the Plan 

Administrator, if the facts support such a claim.

IV. Jury Trial 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury 

trial under ERISA. Under Ninth Circuit law, the “remedies 

available to a participant or beneficiary under ERISA are 

equitable in nature and the Seventh Amendment does not require 

that a jury trial be afforded for claims made by participants or 

beneficiaries.” Thomas v. Or. Fruit Prods. Co., 228 F.3d 991, 997 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Rodrigues argues that he is entitled to a jury trial for his 

breach of fiduciary duty claim, citing Hellman v. Cataldo, 2013 WL 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 9 

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 

4482889 (E.D. Mo.), and Minnesota Power & Affiliated Cos. 

Retirement Plan A v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 2008 WL 2891057 

(D. Minn.). Unlike those courts, however, this Court is bound by 

the Ninth Circuit, which holds that jury trials are not required 

for ERISA claims. Further, in Minnesota Power, the plaintiffs 

were “Plans, their administrators, and the trustee,” who “filed 

suit against a co-fiduciary for damages caused by breach of 

fiduciary duty.” Id. at *5. The court distinguished that suit, 

which was legal in nature and therefore gave rise to a jury trial 

right, from suits in which claimants seek benefits, that is, 

equitable claims. This analysis undermines Rodrigues’s argument. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike Rodrigues’s 

demand for a jury trial. 

CONCLUSION 

 The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss all three 

claims and GRANTS their motion to strike the request for a jury 

trial. It dismisses, without leave to amend, the denial of 

benefits claim against BOFA, the breach of fiduciary claim against 

the Plan and the plan documents claim against both Defendants. 

The Court grants leave to amend the claim for benefits against the 

Plan, after exhaustion, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim 

against BOFA, and to allege the documents claim against the Plan 

Administrator, if Rodrigues makes a request for documents from the 

Plan Administrator and it is denied. 

 Rodrigues may file an amended complaint within 180 days of 

the date of this order. Defendants must file a responsive 

pleading or a motion to dismiss within fourteen days of the date 

an amended complaint is filed. If Defendants file a motion to 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 10 

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 

dismiss, Rodrigues will have fourteen days from the date the 

motion is filed to respond. If Rodrigues files a response, 

Defendants will have seven days to file a reply. The Case 

Management Conference set for July 19, 2016 is vacated, to be 

reset if needed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 1, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-01390-CW Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 10 of 10