1

09-0451-cv Gilbert v. LaSalle Bank Corp.



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY ORDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT
. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
.


### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 16 day of September, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 

### 9 PETER W. HALL, 

### 10 Circuit Judges. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Mae Ann Gilbert, Individually and as 

### 13 14 Executrix of the Estate of Richard P. 

### 15 Kelly, Platinff-Appellant, 

### 16 17 18 -v.- 09-0451-cv 

### 19 20 LaSalle Bank Corporation et al., 

### 21 Defendants-Appellees. 

### 22 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 24 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Mae Ann Gilbert, pro se, Forest 

### 25 26 Hills, NY. 

### 272 

### 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Lyle Stewart Zuckerman, Vedder 

### 2 Price P.C., New York, NY, for 

### 3 Defendant-Appellee LaSalle Bank 

### 4 Corporation. 

### 5 6 Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & 

### 7 Brown, Westport, CT, for 

### 8 Defendant-Appellee Unum 

### 9 Provident Life Insurance 

### 10 Company. 

### 11 12 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 13 Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.).



### 14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 16 AFFIRMED

.



### 17 Plaintiff, Mae Ann Gilbert, pro se, appeals from a 

### 18 judgment of the United States District Court for the 

### 19 Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.). Gilbert 

### 20 asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income 

### 21 Security Act of 1974 against Unum Provident Life Insurance 

### 22 Company, LaSalle Bank Corporation, and various employees of 

### 23 each. Her claims against Unum were dismissed pursuant to 

### 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and her claims 

### 25 against LaSalle on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ 

### 26 familiarity with the underlying facts, the case’s procedural 

### 27 history, and the issues presented for review.



### 28 “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a 

### 29 complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the 

### 30 complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in 

### 31 the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences 

### 32 in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 

### 33 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). We review orders granting 

### 34 summary judgment de novo as well, examining whether “the 

### 35 moving party show[ed] that there are no genuine issues of 

### 36 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

### 37 judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 

### 38 L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).3 

### 1 After de novo review, we conclude for substantially the 

### 2 same reasons as the district court (which adopted the 

### 3 Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation) that Gilbert did 

### 4 not demonstrate that Unum failed to fulfill its fiduciary 

### 5 duty. The duty to notify Richard Kelly of his life 

### 6 insurance conversion rights did not fall on Unum. We 

### 7 further conclude, for substantially the same reasons as the 

### 8 district court (which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

### 9 & Recommendation), that LaSalle fulfilled its obligation 

### 10 under the summary plan description to notify Kelly of his 

### 11 conversion rights. See Howard v. Gleason Corp., 901 F.2d 

### 12 1154, 1159-61 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that a correct 

### 13 statement of the beneficiary’s rights, consistent with the 

### 14 summary plan description, satisfied the fiduciary’s 

### 15 disclosure obligations).



### 16 Finding no merit in Gilbert’s remaining arguments, we 

### 17 hereby AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.



### 18 19 20 FOR THE COURT: 

### 21 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 22 By: 

### 23 24 25

___________________________