NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3329 M A N U E L A R A U J O ,

A p p e llan t v . K R A FT FO O D S G L O B A L , I N C . , A dm i ni s tr at i ve C om m i t t ee O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i v. N o. 08- 00843) H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni , D i s tr i ctJ udge S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

J une 25, 2010 B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I . I NT RO DUC T I ON2

T hi s m att ercomes on be for e the C our ton an appe al fr om an or derent er ed i n t he D is tr ic t C o u rt o n J u ly 7 , 2 0 0 9 , g ra n tin g d e f e n d a n t K ra f

t F o o d s G lo b a l, I n c ., A dm i ni s tr at i on C om m i t t ee’ s ( “the K r aftC om m i t t ee” or“C om m i t t ee” ) m ot i on for s umm a ryj ud gmen ta nd di s mi s s i ng pl a i nt i ff M a nu e l A r a uj o’ s c ompl a i nti n thi s ER I SA cas e w i th pr ej udi ce. Forthe r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D is tr ic t C o u rt . I I . BA CK GR OUND A . F a c ts A r auj o w or ked forN abi s co, I nc. as a w ar ehous e w or kercont i nuous l yfr om 1970 unt i l 2000 w hen K r aftFoods G l obal , I nc. pur chas ed N abi s co. T her eaf t er , A r auj o w or ked f o rKr a f tu n t i l 2 0 0 1 f

o ra t o t a l o f

3 1 y e a r s o f

c o n t i n u o u s e mp l o yme n ta tth e two c o m p a n ie s . N abi s co aut om at i cal l yenr ol l ed i t s empl oy ees i n i t s Pl an forPens i ons . W hen K r aft p u rc h a se d N a b isc o it t o o k o v e r N a b isc o ’s P lan f o r P e n sio n s in c lu d in g th e P lan ’s a ss e ts and obl i gat i ons . T he Pl an had s ever al pens i on opt i ons i ncl udi ng a J ob E l i m i nat i on R eti rem en t Pe n sion (“JE R P ”). T h e P lan p rov ided that a p arti cipa n t w as e li g ible fo r a JE R P i f he h ad “1 0 o r m ore V est i ng Y ears of S ervi ce, [] i s atl eastage 5 5 an d [] has a T erm i nat i on of Em pl oym entdue t o j ob el i m i nat i on. ” A pp. at101. I n addi t i on t o the form al Pl an documents ett i ng for th i t s pr ovi s i ons , N abi s co pr ovi ded a Summ aryPl an D es cr i pt i on ( “SPD ”) . K r aft , w hen ac qui r i ng N abi s co and i t s Pl an forPens i ons , di d not3

change the SPD . T he SPD , i n l anguage s om ew hatdi ffe r entfr om the form al Pl an d o c u m e n t, de sc rib e d a JE R P a s a p e n sio n a p p lica b le “[i ] f y ourempl oym enti s t erm i nat ed due t o j ob el i m i nat i on and y ou ar e atl eas tage 55 a nd have c om pl et ed atl eas t10 y ear s of V e stin g S e rv ice .” A p p . at 8 6 . In a d d iti o n th e S P D p ro v id e d th a t “[ a JE R P ] is p a y a b le m onthl yforl i fe t o Par t i ci pant s w ho r et i r e as r es ul tof the el i m i nat i on of thei rj ob and w ho ar e atl eas tage 55 w i th 10 y ear s of V es t i ng Ser vi ce. ” I d. at83. T he SPD i ntr oduct i on s t at ed thati n t he eve ntof a c onfl i ctbetw een the SPD and the Pl an the t erm s of the Pl an w o u ld c o n tr o l. A ft erthe ac qui s i t i on, the K r aftC om m i t t ee a s s um ed the dut i es and obl i gat i ons t hat p re v io u slyh a d b e e n th e re sp o n sib ili tyo f th e N a b isc o , In c . B e n e f its C o m m itt e e w ith r es pectt o admi ni s tr at i on of the Pl an. T hus , the K r aftC om m i t t ee be came r es pons i bl e for m aki ng pens i on e lig ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s u n d e r t h e P la n . I n 2 0 0 1 K r a f

td e c i d e d t o c l o s e i t s d i s tr i b u t i o n c e n t e ri n T e t e rb o r o , N e w J e r s e y, w her e i templ oy ed A r auj o. T her eaf t er , K r aftand the I nt ernat i onal B r otherhood of T eamst er s , C hauff

eur s , W ar ehous emen and H el per s of A m er i ca, L ocal 560 ( “the U ni on”) negot i at ed and s i gned a M emora ndum of A gr eementdeal i ng w i th the ef fec t s of the c lo sin g o n L o c a l 5 6 0 ' s m e m b e rs. U n d e r th e a g re e m e n t, U n io n m e m b e rs, A ra u jo i ncl uded, coul d t r ans ferthei rempl oym ent , w i th thei rs eni or i tyi nt act , t o a di s tr i but i on cent eri n E di s on, N ew J er s ey , orcoul d appl yforempl oym entata K r aftdi s tr i but i on cent er in M o n tg o m e ry , N e w Y o rk . E m p lo y e e s a lso c o u ld c h o o se to re tire a n d re c e iv e c e rta inAr a u

j o s i g n e d a s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n ta n d g e n e r a l r e l e a s e th a tp r o v i d e d f o ra l u mp 1 s um paym entt o hi m of $9, 000 i n s ett l ementof pendi ng arbi tr at i on cl ai m s and byw hi ch h e w a iv e d a n yri g h t to f u tu re e m p lo ym e n t b yK ra f t. 4 s e v e r a n c e p a yme n t s i n c l u d i n g we e k l ys e v e r a n c e p a yf o ra c a l c u l a b l e p e r i o d a n d a l u mp s um s ett l ementpaym entof $9, 000. T he M emora ndum of A gr eementi ncl uded a “B ri d g ing P rov isi o n , ” w h ich e n ab led e m p loy ee s clo se to m ee ti n g the re q u ir em en ts fo r a JE R P w h o c h o se to ter m in a te th e ir e m p lo ym e n t to sp re a d th e ir se v e ra n c e p a yf o r u p to tw o y e a rs in o rd e r t o m e e t th e a g e o r ye a rs o f v e s tin g s e rv ic e re q u ir e m e n t f o r a J E R P . A r auj o chos e t o r et i r e and r ece i ve s ever ance paym ent s w i thoutadj us t m entforthe B r i dgi ng Pr ovi s i on. I f A r auj o had chos en t o s pr ead hi s s ever ance payunderthe B r i dgi ng 1 Pr ovi s i on, he neve r thel es s onl yw oul d have r eac hed age 53 r atherthan age 55 as r equi r ed f o r JE R P e lig ib ili ty . H is te rm in a tio n w a s e f f e c tiv e N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 1 , b u t b e c a u se o f h is e le c tio n to re tir e h e c o n tin u e d to re c e iv e h is w a g e p a ym e n ts u n til J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 2 . In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 2 , A ra u jo re c e iv e d in f

o rm a tio n f

ro m K ra f t co n c e rn in g h is pens i on el i gi bi l i ty . H e w as el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve ei thera V es t ed Pens i on upon r eac hi ng age 6 5 o r a D e f

e rre d V e ste d P e n sio n (“ D V P ” ) b e g in n in g a t ag e 5 5 . U n d e r th e D V P , A ra u jo w oul d r ece i ve s m al l erpaym ent s than he w oul d have be en pai d i f he e l ect ed t o r ece i ve a V e ste d P e n sio n , an a d

ju stm e n t re f

lec tin g th e e a rlier sta rtin g d a te f o r p e n sio n p a ym e n ts underthe D V P. I ti s obvi ous thatatthatt i m e A r auj o ques t i oned w hetherhe had other pens i on opt i ons forhi s couns el w r ot e a l ett ert o K r afti nqui r i ng w hyhe w as i nel i gi bl e for a JE R P w h ich p rov ided m o re g en ero u s p ay m en ts th an a D V P . S o fa r as the rec o rdK ra f

t h a s b e e n u n a b le to d e te rm in e if it r e p lie d to th e le tte r, a n d , if n o t, w h yn o t. 2 T h a t d a te w a s th e f

ir s t d a yo f

th e m o n th f

o llo w in g A ra u

jo ’s 5 5 th b ir th d a y . 3 5 r evea l s K r aftdi d notr es pond t o hi s l ett er . A r auj o opt ed t o r ece i ve the D V P and began 2 r ece i vi ng pens i on paym ent s on A pr i l 1, 2004. H e then fi l ed an i nt ernal cl ai m r eques t i ng 3 th a t th e K ra f

t C o m m itt e e a d

ju st h is p e n sio n f

ro m a D V P to a JE R P o n th e b a sis o f h is bel i ef thathe w as el i gi bl e fora J E R P even though he w as not55 y ear s ol d atthe t i m e of hi s t erm i nat i on. T he C om m i t t ee de ni ed the cl ai m i ni t i al l yand then on appe al even though i tacknow l edged thatthe l anguage of the SPD , though i n i t s vi ew noti n confl i ct w ith th e P la n , w a s n o t e n tir e ly cl e a r. B . P roc ed u ral H ist o ry A r auj o fi l ed thi s act i on on February15, 2008, agai ns tthe K r aftC om m i t t ee i n t he D i s tr i ctC our tcl ai m i ng thatthe SPD w as m i s l eadi ng beca us e i tdi d nots t at e cl ear l ythat an em p loy ee h ad to b e 5 5 y ea rs old at th e ti m e o f th e job eli m ination to b e e li g ible fo r a J E R P. A r auj o cont ends thatbeca us e the SPD w as m i s l eadi ng i tl ed hi m t o acc eptthe t erm i nat i on s ever ance packa ge r atherthan t o tr ans fert o anotherK r aftfac i l i tyw hen K r aft el i m i nat ed hi s pos i t i on. A r auj o cont ends thatK r afts houl d be es t opped fr om as s ert i ng th a t h e w a s n o t en tit led to a JE R P a n d th a t K ra f t b re a c h e d its f

id u c iar yd u tyw h e n it a c q u ir e d N a b is c o b yc o n tin u in g in e f f e c t th e m is le a d in g S P D th a t N a b is c o h a d is s u e d . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed the fi r s tgr ound of the compl ai ntas i tfound thatA r auj o w as unabl e t o es t abl i s h t he pr es ence of equi t abl e es t oppel underE R I SA . I n thi s r egar d K r aft6

c o n c e d e d f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t p u rp o se s th a t A ra u jo sa tisf ied th e f irst tw o re q u ire m e n ts fo r a sh o w ing o f e q u it ab le estop p el: K raf t’ s m aterial rep rese n tat ion an d A rau jo’s r eas onabl e and de tr i m ent al r el i ance on the r epr es ent at i on. B utthe D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatA r auj o di d nots at i s fythe thi r d and fi nal r equi r ementforequi t abl e es t oppel : the p rese n ce o f e x tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s justi fy ing it s ap p li ca ti o n . T h e e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s thatA r auj o advanc ed w er e thatthe SPD w as ambi guous and he w as for ei gn born w i th a l i m i t ed know l edge of E ngl i s h. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed the s econd gr ound of the compl ai nt , w hi ch cha r ged thatK r afthad br eac hed i t s fi duci aryduty , as t he C our tfound thatK r afthad notbr eac hed thatdutybeca us e i thad notm ade a n aff i r m at i ve m i s s t at ementand i t s det erm i nat i on w i th r es pectt o A r auj o’ s pens i on el i gi bi l i tyw as r eas onabl e. A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the C o m m itte e o n b o th c o u n ts , A ra u jo f ile d th is tim e ly ap p e a l.

I I I . J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW Ar a u j o s o u g h tr e v i e w i n th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tp u r s u a n tt o 2 9 U. S . C. § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) “t o r ecove rbenef

i t s due t o hi m underthe t erm s of hi s pl an, t o enfor ce hi s r i ght s undert he t erm s of the pl an, ort o cl ar i fyhi s r i ght s t o futur e bene fi t s underthe t erm s of the pl an. ” T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e f in a l su m m a ryju d g m e n t o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of i t s s um m aryj udgm entor der . See Sant os7

e x re l. B e a to v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 9 F .3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

I V. DI S CU S S I ON A r auj o cl ai m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr oneous l yfound he di d nots at i s fythe e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s re q u ire m e n t, th e e lem e n ts o f w h ich w e e x p lain b e lo w , to j ust i fythe ap pli cat i on of eq uit able es t op pel unde r ER ISA § 5 02 (a) (3) . A rauj o als o c h a llen g e s th e C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t K ra f

t d id n o t b re a c h its f

id u c iar yd u tyb yc o n tin u in g in e f f e c t a m is le a d in g S P D w h e n it a c q u ir e d N a b is c o . A . T h e E q u itab le E sto p p e l C laim E q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l i s a v a i l a b l e t o s u p p o r ta c a u s e o f a c t i o n u n d e rE RI S A § 5 0 2 (a )(3 ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 ). T o m a in tain a c a u se o f a c tio n d e p e n d e n t o n e q u itab le es t oppel of a de fenda nta “pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h ( 1) a mat er i al r epr es ent at i on, ( 2) rea so n ab le an d d etri m en tal reli an ce u p o n the re p rese n tat ion an d (3) e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s . ” B ur s t ei n v. R et . A ccountforE m pl oy ees of A l l eghenyH eal th E duc. and R es ear ch Found. , 334 F. 3d 365, 383 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng C ur ci o v. J ohn H ancoc k M ut . Li fe I ns . Co. , 33 F. 3d 22 6, 23 5 ( 3d Ci r . 19 94 ) ) . Butt o b e s uc c e s s fu l on a n ERI SA cl ai m depende nton the appl i cat i on of equi t abl e es t oppel , a pl ai nt i ff mustdo m or e than es t abl i s h thatthe bas i c el ement s forequi t abl e es t oppel ar e pr es ent . K ur z v. Phi l a. E l ec. C o. , 96 F. 3d 1544, 1553 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng G i l l i s v. H oechs tC el anes e C orp. , 4 F. 3d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). Ina sm u ch as E R IS A d o es n o t def ine e x p li cit ly“e x tr ao rdin ary8

c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” c a s e la w e s ta b lis h e s th e p h ra s e ’s p a ra m e te rs . C u rc io , 3 3 F .3 d a t 2 3 7 . G ener al l y , extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ar i s e fr om conducti nvol vi ng “ac t s of bad fai th on the partof the empl oy er , att empt s t o act i vel yconce al a s i gni fi cantchange i n t he plan, or com m i ssi on of f raud. ” B urst ei n, 33 4 F . 3d at38 3 (quo t i ng Jordan v . F ed. E xp res s C o rp., 1 1 6 F . 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )). T h ere also m ayb e e x tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s attri b u table to a d ef en d an t’ s rep ea ted m isr ep rese n tat ion s o r a p lai n ti ff ’s part i cul arvul ner abi l i ty . K ur z, 96 F. 3d at1553 ( ci t i ng C ur ci o, 33 F. 3d at238) . N ot s urpr i s i ngl yi n l i ghtof thes e hei ght ened r equi r ement s , w e have “cons i s t ent l yr ej ect ed es t oppel cl ai m s bas ed on s i m pl e ER I SA r eport i ng err or s ordi s cl os ur e vi ol at i ons , s uch as v a ri a tio n s b e tw e e n a p la n s u m m a ry a n d th e p la n its e lf.” Id . (c itin g G illis , 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 2 ). W e c o n clud e h ere that A rau jo h as n o t est ab li sh ed that there are ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s s at i s fy i ng the hei ght ened r equi r ement s s t andar d. W e r ecogni ze thatA r auj o cont ends thathi s s t atus as a Portugues e i m m i gr ant combi ned w i th hi s l i m i t ed know l edge of E ngl i s h m akes hi m part i cul ar l yvul ner abl e and th a t th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w e re s u f f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H ow ever , w e neve rhave f ound i m m i gr ants t atus t o be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h an extr aor di naryci r cumst ance i n an ER I SA cont exts i m i l art o thather e. G ener al l y , w e fi nd th a t th e re a re e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s b a se d o n a p lain tiff ’s p a rticu lar v u ln e ra b ili ty onl yi n i ns t ance s of i m m i nent and l i fe thr eat eni ng heal th emer genci es t o the pl ai nt i ff hi m s el f ort o hi s fami l ym ember s . See Sm i th v. T he H art for d I ns . G r oup, 6 F. 3d 131 ( 3d9

C i r . 1993) ( pl ai nt i ff w ho had s uffe r ed a c er ebr al hemorrhage c ons i der ed vul ner abl e) ; s ee al s o C ur ci o, 33 F. 3d 226 ( pl ai nt i ff w hos e hus band di ed i n a ca racc i dentbuts uffe r ed no in ju ry h e rs e lf

q u a lif ie d a s v u ln e ra b le ). N o tw ith sta n d in g o u r e x a c tin g d e f in iti o n o f e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s, A ra u jo m aintains that the D istri ct C o u rterred in rejec ti n g h is co n tention that there w ere e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s p re se n t h e re ju stif y in g h is c laim . In su p p o rt o f h is c o n ten tio n h e c ites C u rc io in w h ich th e p lain tiff , w h o se h u sb a n d d ied in a c a r a c c id e n t, d id n o t herse lf su ff

er a n yinjuryb u t i n w h ich w e n ev erthe less fo u n d that there w ere e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s ju stif y in g th e a p p lica tio n o f

e sto p p e l ag a in st th e d e f e n d a n t in th e p lain tiff ’s E R IS A c laim c a se a g a in st it. A ra u jo a ss e rts th a t if e m o tio n a l su f f e rin g is e n o u g h to c re a te “ v u ln e ra b ility,” th e n im m ig ra n t s ta tu s a ls o s h o u ld b e s u f f ic ie n t. H ow ever , i n C ur ci o, the pl ai nt i ff w as notr ender ed vul ner abl e s i m pl ybyvi r tue of he r compromi s ed emot i onal s t at e. T he def endanti n C ur ci o, C api t al H eal th, m ade c ont i nuous m i s r epr es ent at i ons overan ext ended pe r i od of t i m e w hi ch, forr eas ons i ndepende ntof her emot i onal s uffe r i ng, coul d es t abl i s h an exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance . C ur ci o, 33 F. 3d at238 (as c it ed in K u rz, 96 F . 3 d at 15 5 3 ); see also S m ith , 6 F . 3 d at 14 2 (ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s exi s t ed w her e def endantm ade r epea t ed mi s r epr es ent at i ons t o pl ai nt i ff w ho h ad su ff ere d fro m a c ere b ral he m o rrha g e a n d req u ir ed inten sive ca re). U n lik e th e situ a tio n in C u rc io a n d S m ith , the f a c ts o n w h ich A ra u

jo re lies to su p p o rtthe e x tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s co m p o n en t of h is eq u it ab le estop p el claim areA r auj o’ s cont ent i on that“K r aftand the C om m i t t ee e xhi bi t ed i nequi t abl e conduc tby 4 fai l i ng t o cu re the am bigui tyi nh erenti n the SP D , ” A pp el l ant’ s br. at8, seem i ng l yi s a fr ee- s t andi ng cl ai m . B utA r auj o al s o s t at es i n the s ect i on of hi s br i ef de al i ng w i th the “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s re q u ire m e n t” f o r e q u itab le e sto p p e l th a t “K ra f t h a d a m p le o p p o rt u n ity to a m e n d b o th [ th e P la n a n d th e S P D ] a f te r i ts a c q u is itio n o f

N a b is c o ,” there b ysu g g esti n g that it s fa il u re to a m en d is an asp ec t of the e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s r equi r ementforthe appl i cat i on of equi t abl e es t oppel . A ppel l ant ’ s br . at 1 2 . W e a re tre a tin g th e f a ilu re to a m e n d th e S P D b o th w a y s, i.e. a s a f re e -sta n d in g c laim a n d a s p a rt o f

th e e q u ita b le e s to p p e l c la im . 10 n o t r ec en t. A rau

jo h as b ee n in the U n it ed S tat es f o r ov er 3 0 y ea rs an d h as h is son ’s as s i s t ance w hen r eadi ng E ngl i s h document s . Fur therm or e, ther e ar e no fa ct s s ugges t i ng A ra u jo ’s im m ig ra n t sta tu s h a s re n d e re d h im e sp e c iallyv u ln e ra b le. W e f in d n o re a so n to e x te n d e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s to e n c o m p a s s im m ig ra n t s ta tu s in th is in s ta n c e . In a d d it ion to claim ing that h is i m m igran t st atus ca n estab li sh an ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance , A r auj o as s ert s thatK r aftengage d i n i nequi t abl e conduc tthates t abl i s hes an extr aor di naryci r cumst ance . H ow ever , A r auj o has notpl eade d anyact s of bad f ai th, i nt ent i onal conce al m ent , orfr aud cons t i tut i ng i nequi t abl e conduc t . H e cl ai m s thatK r aft c o u ld h a v e c o rre c ted th e a m b ig u ityin th e S P D th a t led h im to b e liev e th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r a JE R P a n d its f

a ilu re to d o so is in e q u itab le c o n d u c t. T h is a rg u m e n t, ho w e v e r, is 4 unavai l i ng and w e w i l l di s cus s i tfur therunderthe nexti s s ue. G i ven thatA r auj o has not pl ed ac t s of bad f

ai th, i nt ent i onal conce al m ent , orfr aud and thatw e cons i s t ent l yhave re jec ted c laim s b a se d o n v a ria tio n s in th e p lan d e sc rip tio n su m m a ryf ro m a p lan , A ra u

jo c a n n o t es tab lish th a t th e re a re e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s h e re d u e to K ra f t’s in e q u itab le c o n d u c t.11

B. Th e Br e a c h o f

F i d u c i a ryDu tyCl a i m E R I SA cr eat es obl i gat i ons forfi duci ar i es and al l ow s pl an part i ci pant s a ca us e of act i on forbr eac h of the fi duci ary ’ s obl i gat i ons undera pl an. T o es t abl i s h a br eac h of fi duci arydutycl ai m , “a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h eac h of the fol l ow i ng el ement s : ( 1) the defe ndant ’ s s t atus as an ER I SA fi duci aryact i ng as a fi duci ary ; ( 2) a mi s r epr es ent at i on on the partof the def

endant ; ( 3) the mat er i al i tyof thatm i s r epr es ent at i on; and ( 4) detr i m ent al r el i ance bythe pl ai nt i ff on the mi s r epr es ent at i on. ” B ur s t ei n, 334 F. 3d at384 ( quot i ng D aniel s v. T ho m as & B et t s C orp. , 26 3 F . 3d 66 , 73 (3d C i r. 20 01 )) . K raft ’s st atus as a fi duci aryi s notati s s ue, butthe D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatK r afthad notm ade a m i s r epr es ent at i on. T her efor e, the C our tdi d notaddr es s the fi nal tw o el ement s of a br eac h of fi duci arydutycl ai m . T he crux of thi s appea l r es t s on the s econd e l ementof thatcl ai m , i . e. w hetherK r aftm ade a m i s r epr es ent at i on.

1 . M isre p re se n tatio n o n th e P a rt o f th e D e f e n d a n t I n the e ve ntof

a c on fl i c t , the SPD c on tr ol s . Bur s t e i n, 33 4 F. 3d a t37 8. ER I SA r equi r es thatan SPD be w r i t t en s o as t o be under s t ood bythe ave r age pl an part i ci pantand

“ sh a ll b e su f

f icie n tlya c c u ra te a n d c o m p re h e n siv e to re a so n a b lya p p rise su c h p a rticip a n ts and bene fi ci ar i es of thei rr i ght s and obl i gat i ons underthe pl an. ” I d. at379 ( quot i ng 29 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 2 (a )). N e v e rth e les s, a c o n f lict is n o t n e c e ss a rilyc re a ted w h e n a n S P D is s i l e ntorfa i l s t o i nc l ud e c e r t a i n t e r ms o f a pl a n. N a s h v . M e r c e de s Benz U SA , 48 9 F. S u p p . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 6 (D .N .J . 2 0 0 7 ).12

A r auj o m ai nt ai ns thatthe w or di ng of the SPD i s ambi guous , cl ai m i ng thatthe po s i t i on i ng of

the t e r m “a ge 55 , ” tha tw e qu ot e d a bo ve i n the tw o p ort i on s of the SPD c o u l d b e i n t e rp r e t e d a s e i th e rth e a g e a tt i me o f th e j o b e l i mi n a t i o n o rth e a g e a tth e t i me of r et i r ement . B utr egar dl es s of a pos s i bl e ambi gui tyi n the SPD , the w or di ng of the Pl an w as notambi guous . I n t he Pl an the t erm “age 55” i m m edi at el ypr ece des the t erm i nat i on r efe r ence and modi fi es i t . I n a l ett ert o couns el dat ed Sept ember20, 2005, the C om m i t t ee acknow l edged that“the SPD l anguage w as notas cl earas the Pl an documentl anguage r egar di ng the r equi r ementthatthe part i ci pantm us tbe age 55 atthe t i m e of the j ob el i m i nat i on. ” A pp. at53. N everthel es s , the SPD i s m eantt o s um m ar i ze a nd notparr ot the t erm s of the Pl an as parr ot i ng w oul d defe atthe purpos e of the SPD . B ur s t ei n, 334 F. 3d at379. A ffi r m at i ve mi s r epr es ent at i ons have be en found i n i ns t ance s of di r ect confl i ct . I d. at380 ( aff i r m at i ve conf

l i ctexi s t ed w her e the SPD di d notpos s es s a y ear s of serv ice req u ir em en t w h il e the P lan re q u ir ed a f ive-y ea r m inim u m term o f se rvice ); G o rs v. V enoyPal m erM kt . , I nc. , 578 F. Supp. 365, 367 ( E . D . M i ch. 1984) ( aff i r m at i ve m isre p re se n tatio n e x iste d w h e n th e S P D sta ted p e n sio n w o u ld v e st a f ter f iv e y e a rs w h ile th e P la n re q u ir e d te n ). I n thi s cas e the di ffe r ence betw een the Pl an and the SPD i s i n the or der i ng of the e lem e n ts o f

JE R P e lig ib ili ty . E v e n th o u g h it m ig h t h a v e b e e n p ru d e n t f o r K ra f t to re w rite the S P D w h en itac q u ir ed N ab isco to state sp ec ifi ca ll ythat an em p loy ee m u st be 5 5 y ea rs o ld a t th e tim e o f

jo b ter m in a tio n f

o r JE R P e lig ib ili ty , it s f a ilu re to d o so d id n o t lea v e in13

pl ace an af

fi r m at i ve conf

l i ctbetw een the Pl an and the SPD . W hi l e the or der i ng of the Pl an i s cl ear erthan the or der i ng of the SPD , a di ffe r ence i n cl ar i tydoes notamount t o a di r ectconfl i ctand the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatther e w as no confl i ctcannotbe d is tu rb e d . 2. A rbi tr aryand C apr i ci ous R evi ew U nderthe arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d, a courtm ayoverturn an admi ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i on w hen i ti s nots uppor t ed bythe evi dence orvi ol at es pl an pr ocedur es . A bnathy a v. H offman- L a R oche, I nc. , 2 F. 2d 40, 41 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W hen e v a lu a tin g a n a d m in istra to r’s d e c isio n s re g a rd in g E R IS A b e n e f its th e c o u rt “ sh o u ld a p p ly a def er ent i al abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d of r evi ew acr os s the boar d and cons i derany confl i ctof i nt er es tas one of s ever al fac t or s i n cons i der i ng w hetherthe admi ni s tr at oror the fi duci aryabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. ” Est at e of K evi n Schw i ng v. the Li l l yH eal th Pl an, 562 F. 3d 522, 525 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . M or eover , a courtcannots ubs t i tut e i t s ow n j udgm ent forthatof an a dm i ni s tr at orw hen eva l uat i ng el i gi bi l i ty . A bnathy a, 2 F. 2d a t 4 5 . I nas m uch as ther e w as notan af fi r m at i ve conf

l i ctbetw een the SPD and the Pl an, the D is tr ic t C o u rt a p p ro p ri a te ly f o u n d th a t K ra f

t’ s in te rp re ta tio n o f

th e P la n w a s re a s o n a b le . A r auj o cont ends that , byacqui r i ng N abi s co and i t s as s et s and obl i gat i ons undert he Pl an, K r afthad an i ncent i ve t o r educe pens i on paym ent s know i ng thatform erN abi s co e m p lo y e e s w o u ld o p t to re tire a n d re c e iv e h ig h e r JE R P b e n e f its. H e c o n ten d s th a t th is ince n ti v e, i n turn , cre ated a struc tural co n fli ct th at he b eli ev es th at th e D istri ct C o u rtW e ar e notconce r ned her e w i th cas e l aw t o the end thati n the eve ntof a c onfl i ct 5 betw een a p l an an d an S P D the latt er cont rol s, see B urst ei n, 33 4 F . 3d at37 8, becau se th e re is n o t a c o n f

lic t h e re . 14 s houl d have c ons i der ed. Fol l ow i ng thi s l ogi c, A r auj o ar gues K r aft ’ s det erm i nat i on that h e w as in eli g ible fo r a JE R P w as a rbitraryan d ca p ri ciou s. B u t a co u rto n lyca n o v erturn an admi ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i on i f i tw as “w i thoutr eas on, uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence orerr oneous as a mat t erof l aw . ” N as h, 489 F. Supp. 2d at418 ( quot i ng M cLeod v. H art for d L i fe a nd A cci dentI ns . C o. , 372 F. 3d 618, 623 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ) . I nas m uch as t he SPD and the Pl an do notaff i r m at i vel yconfl i ct , and the i ntr oduct i on t o the SPD s t at es t hat i n m att er s of conf

l i ctthe Pl an w i l l contr ol , the C om m i t t ee’ s det erm i nat i on w as r eas onabl e. I ti s i m m at er i al thatthe SPD coul d be i nt erpr et ed anotherw ay ; the

5 C o m m itte e ’s in te rp re ta tio n n e e d o n ly b e re a s o n a b le a n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e e v id e n c e . A b n a th y a , 2 F .2 d a t 4 1 , 4 5 . A ddi t i onal l y , the pos s i bl e conf l i ctof i nt er es ti s onl yone fa ct ori n the eva l uat i on and i ti s outw ei ghed byot herevi dence s uppor t i ng the deni al of a J E R P. I f K r afthad bee n s eeki ng t o r educe pens i on paym ent s , i tw oul d have be en i rr at i onal fori tt o agr ee t o the B rid g in g P ro v isio n a s th e U n io n a n d K ra f t sp e c if ica llyd e sig n e d th e p ro v isio n to h e lp empl oy ees cl os e t o qual i fy i ng fora J E R P t o m eetei therthe age 55 or10 y ear s ves t i ng s ervi ce r equi r ement s . T hus the B r i dgi ng Pr ovi s i on pot ent i al l yi ncr eas ed the amountK r aft w oul d expend i n pens i on paym ent s . A r auj o as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave b e e n p e rsu a d e d b yth e B rid g in g P ro v isio n g iv e n th a t th e p ro v isio n ju st a s e a silyc o u ld15

appl yt o the t erm of s ervi ce r equi r ement . W e r ecogni ze thati nas m uch as A r auj o had acc um ul at ed thr ee t i m es the s ervi ce t erm than the r equi r ed 10- y earper i od fora J E R P, he bel i eved the B r i dgi ng Pr ovi s i on di d notappl yt o hi m . B uteven i f the B r i dgi ng Pr ovi s i on is in terp re ted to a p p lyo n lyto th e y e a rs o f v e stin g se rv ice re q u ire m e n t, i t still w o u ld a id empl oy ees i n obt ai ni ng J E R P el i gi bi l i tyand i ncr eas e pens i on paym ent s . A bs ent addi t i onal evi dence of fr aud orm i s conduct , w hi ch A r auj o has fai l ed t o pr ovi de, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entw i l l s t and.

V. CO NC L US I ON F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt e n te re d J u ly 7 , 2 0 0 9 , g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e K ra f t C o m m itte e . A r auj o has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h ei therthathi s i m m i gr ants t atus orK r aft ’ s fai l ur e t o m odi fy the SPD cr eat es an exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance j us t i fy i ng the appl i cat i on of es t oppel p ri n ciples a n d there fo re h is cl aim p red icated o n eq u it ab le estop p el i s insu ff ici en t. T h ere i s no aff i r m at i ve conf

l i ctbetw een the SPD and the Pl an and ther efor e a c l ai m of br eac h of fi duci arydutycannotbe bas ed on a c l ai m of s uch a c onfl i ct . B as ed on thi s evi dence , t he C om m i t t ee’ s det erm i nat i on thatA r auj o w as i nel i gi bl e fora J E R P w as r eas onabl e, and the C o u rt w a s ri g h t to u p h o ld it.