1

09-0451-cv

Gilbert v. LaSalle Bank Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 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

13 Mae Ann Gilbert, Individually and as

14 Executrix of the Estate of Richard P.

15 Kelly,

16 Platinff-Appellant,

17

18 -v.- 09-0451-cv

19

20 LaSalle Bank Corporation et al.,

21 Defendants-Appellees.

22

23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

24

25 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Mae Ann Gilbert, pro se, Forest

26 Hills, NY.

27
2

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 ___________________________