UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

LORENE D. JONES

As Guardian of the 

Person and the Estate of

Henry C. Wells

Case No.:

Plaintiff,

Judge:

vs.

Magistrate Judge: 

GENERAL MOTORS HOURLYRATE EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN

and

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF 

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

and

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

and

GENERAL MOTORS BENEFITS 

& SERVICES CENTER

and

FIDELITY WORKPLACE SERVICES, LLC

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Now comes the Plaintiff, Lorene D. Jones, Guardian of the Person and Estate of 

Henry C. Wells, by and through her undersigned attorney, Robert Armand Perez, Sr. 

and The Perez Law Firm Co., L.P.A., and for her Complaint does hereby state as follows:

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 1
2

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. Jurisdiction of the court is based upon the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); in particular, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(1)-(2) provision that 

gives the district courts jurisdiction to hear civil actions brought to recover benefits due 

under the terms of the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan that, in 

this case, consists of lump sum pension benefits that are provided for the General 

Motors pension participants and their beneficiaries doing business in the Southern 

District of Ohio, Western Division. 

2. This action may be brought before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

that gives the district court jurisdiction over actions that arise under the laws of the 

United States.

3. At 29 U.S.C. § 1133, the ERISA statute provides a mechanism for 

administrative or internal appeal of benefit denials. Those avenues of appeal have been 

exhausted as under the applicable regulations Plaintiff’s multiple efforts to resolve this 

matter as reflected in the attached documents without response are deemed exhausted. 

Therefore, Lorene D. Jones as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Henry C. Wells may 

bring this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 in federal court. Attached as Exhibit number 1 

is a copy of the letter appointing her Guardian of Henry C. Wells in Hamilton County 

Probate Court.

Nature of Action

4. This is a claim by Plaintiff Lorene D. Jones on behalf of Henry C. Wells as 

Mr. Wells’ Guardian, a pension Plan participant, for pension benefits pursuant to the 

General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan (hereinafter “the Plan”). This 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2
3

action, seeking the recovery of benefits, is brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132, et seq. 

and 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1), et seq. The Plaintiff also seeks to clarify Mr. Wells’ rights to 

benefits, enjoin the Defendants, and issue an injunction to pay benefits as they were 

certified and relied upon and other equitable relief as enumerated herein.

The Parties

5. Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC (hereinafter “Fidelity”) is being sued in 

its representative capacity only, as Plan Administrator to qualified employee benefit 

Plans which are maintained by Plan sponsors. The Finance Committee of General 

Motors Corporation is the named fiduciary and has the authority to manage the Plan 

under the trust provisions of the Plan document. General Motors Corporation is the 

Plan Administrator and as such is a functional fiduciary because of its duty in the

administration of benefits. 

6. The General Motors Benefits & Service Center (hereinafter “Service 

Center”) received an application for retirement benefits from Wells and it requested 

information/verification/documentation about Mr. Wells’ ex-wife to which Wells 

responded, the Service Center has refused to respond to any attempts at communication 

afterward. 

7. Fidelity, and the Service Center, and the Finance Committee of General 

Motors Corporation are “fiduciaries” for the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees 

Pension Plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) and § 1102(a)(2).

8. Henry C. Wells was, for all times relevant herein, a Participant in the 

General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan and is a vested participant under 

the Plan and eligible for pension benefits. He is represented by Plaintiff Lorene D. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 3
4

Jones, Guardian of Person and Estate under letters of authority issued by the Hamilton 

County Probate Court. Mr. Wells is a Participant as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). 

This claim relates to vested pension benefits under the foregoing pension Plan. 

Factual Allegations

9. GM Benefits & Services Center sent a letter to Mr. Wells on September 14, 

2015 enclosing a statement of his “Accrued Benefit from the Plan.” Included was a 

statement of Benefit Data and Accrued Benefit as of September 14, 2015 and a Deferred 

Retirement Benefit Percentages Payable Early Commencement Age Reduction Factor 

Table as well as a completed Spousal Missing Data Form dated September 21, 2015. 

The statement indicated that Mr. Wells’ benefits were payable on December 1, 1999 as a 

single life annuity of $325.96 per month. Mr. Wells completed the enclosed Spousal 

Missing Data Form dated September 21, 2015 and returned it. A copy of this 

September 14, 2015 letter and enclosure is attached and incorporated as if set forth fully 

herein as Exhibit numbers 2-7. 

10. The Plan participant, Henry C. Wells, submitted an application for pension 

benefits to the General Motors Pension Plan on or about May 24, 2016. 

11. No pension benefits have ever been paid Mr. Wells under the General 

Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after several efforts by Mr. Wells with Ms. 

Jones’ assistance.

12. Plaintiff then retained counsel who forwarded a letter of representation 

and appeal dated November 22, 2016 to Ms. Christine Melsheimer at GM Benefits & 

Services Center, Fidelity Investments in addition to GM Benefits & Services Center. 

The letter requested Mr. Well’s benefits be paid from his normal retirement date of age 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 4
5

65 that occurred in 1999 to the present, and was a claim for these benefits. This letter 

also requested “the entire pension Plan and the Summary Plan Description under which 

Mr. Wells is entitled to benefits as an hourly employee,” among other things. A copy of 

this letter with enclosures is attached and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as 

Exhibit numbers 8-15. 

13. This November 22, 2016 letter was sent by certified mail to Ms. 

Melsheimer and a copy of the postal receipts confirming delivery are attached and 

incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 16-17.

14. The GM Benefits & Services Center responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s initial 

letter on December 1, 2016 by sending the requested Summary Plan Description and 

stating that “Henry Wells must contact the GM Benefits & Services Center to commence 

his pension benefits.” The pension Plan was not sent as requested. A copy of this letter 

with enclosure is attached and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit 

numbers 18-93.

15. Counsel for Plaintiff sent another letter dated January 10, 2017 to both 

Christine Melsheimer at GM Benefits & Services Center, Fidelity Investments and the

GM Benefits & Services Center requesting, among other things, the required form to 

initiate a pension claim and a complete and total response to the prior correspondence. 

A copy of this letter is attached and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit 

numbers 94-96. 

16. General Motors then sent an Annual Funding Notice directly to Mr. 

Wells which he received on or about January 25, 2017. A copy of this notice is attached 

and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 97-103.

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 5
6

17. A telephone call took place on or about February 29, 2017 between Mr. 

Wells and a General Motors’ representative at Fidelity in which Mr. Wells was asked 

several irrelevant questions represented as “security questions” but no payment ensued.

18. Plaintiff’s counsel sent another letter dated July 24, 2017 to both Christine 

Melsheimer at GM Benefits & Services Center, Fidelity Investments and the GM Benefits 

& Services Center to apprise the companies of the current status of this matter. It was 

noted that at this time, a guardianship was being sought by Ms. Jones of Mr. Wells 

through the Hamilton County Probate Court. A copy of this letter is attached and 

incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 104-105.

19. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a fourth letter dated October 9, 2017 to both 

Christine Melsheimer at GM Benefits & Services Center, Fidelity Investments and the 

GM Benefits & Services Center enclosing a certified copy of the court letter of authority 

appointing Ms. Jones Guardian of the Person and Estate of Mr. Henry C. Wells. 

Counsel again requested any and all documentation necessary to make application for 

Ms. Wells’ past due pension benefits. Yet another request was made for the entire 

pension Plan in effect on Mr. Wells’ last day of service and all other documents that 

constitute the Plan. A copy of this letter with enclosure is attached and incorporated as 

if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 106-108.

20. Plaintiff’s counsel sent yet another letter dated October 20, 2017 to both 

Christine Melsheimer at GM Benefits & Services Center, Fidelity Investments and the 

GM Benefits & Services Center in follow up to prior correspondence, additional request 

for information, and again enclosing various authorizations, release forms, and 

verification for release of information. A copy of counsel’s prior letter was also 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 6
7

enclosed for reference. A copy of this October 20, 2017 letter with enclosures is 

attached and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 109-111.

21. Lastly, on November 22, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a final letter to both 

Christine Melsheimer at GM Benefits & Services Center, Fidelity Investments and the 

GM Benefits & Services Center stating, among other things, that “a year has passed since 

we notified you of our representation of Mr. Wells.” A copy of prior correspondence 

was enclosed, and it was again reiterated that a claim had been made for outstanding 

pension benefits and that the entire pension Plan had been previously requested on 

multiple occasions. The letter concluded by stating that the administrative remedies 

available to Mr. Wells were now being deemed exhausted. A copy of this letter with 

enclosures and mail receipts is attached and incorporated as if set forth fully herein as 

Exhibit numbers 112-123.

22. No response to these efforts including the November 22, 2017 letter has 

ever been received or payment of the requested pension benefits made.

23. ERISA requires an Employee Benefit Plan be established and maintained 

according to a written instrument, 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1). Although this document was 

repeatedly requested by Plaintiff’s counsel, to date no response has been made. The 

Summary Plan Description as provided to Plaintiff’s counsel is attached and 

incorporated as if set forth fully herein as Exhibit numbers 19-93. 

First Cause of Action – Claim for Pension Benefits

24. Plaintiff incorporates as if fully restated herein the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Complaint.

25. Wells became eligible for his pension benefits on his normal retirement 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 7
8

date which was in November of 1999. He did not receive any pension benefits and to 

date, Lorene D. Jones as his Guardian is not receiving payment.

26. The above stated efforts were made on behalf of Mr. Wells and he is 

entitled to his pension benefits in an unreduced, undiminished amount from the date of 

his eligibility in 1999.

27. “Normal retirement age” is defined in the Summary Plan Description 

(“SPD”) as age sixty-five (65). (SPD p. 43). The retirement benefits are based upon 

benefit class codes and participant Henry C. Wells is “Class A.”

28. The Summary Plan Description describes various annual increases to the 

benefit amount based upon the years of service. 

29. Based upon the representations of the GM Benefits & Services Center and 

the correspondence of September 14, 2015 Mr. Wells is benefit class code A with a basic 

benefit rate of $23.45 and has 13.9 credit years of service for an accrued benefit as of 

December 1, 1999 of $325.96. See attached Exhibit 4, supra.

30. ERISA has certain protections that are provided retirees who have vested 

pension rights. These rights are rights that guarantee no forfeiture that requires an 

actuarial adjustment and payment under 29 U.S.C. § 1054(c)(3). If payment is not 

initiated at the normal retirement age but is delayed and because once vested, it is a 

non-forfeitable right under 29 U.S.C. § 1053(a).

31. Because of these protections, there must be an actuarial adjustment and a 

lump sum payment with interest paid at the appropriate rate of interest. 26 U.S.C. § 

411(c)(3); 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(a)-7(a)(1)(ii), 1411(c)-1(e)(1) by virtue of 29 U.S.C. § 1202(c).

32. The Plaintiff requests that the court order the payment of a reasonable 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 8
9

interest rate to be determined by the court to accommodate the requirements of the 

above-stated statutory and regulatory requirements and that it be applied to his accrued 

benefit with any increases to his benefits that should have been applied pursuant to the 

terms of the pension Plan as it is an unconditional right. 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(a)-4(a).

Second Cause of Action - Breach of Duty to Provide Plan

33. Plaintiff incorporates as if fully restated herein the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 32 of the Complaint.

34. The Plaintiff requested the Plan document by and through counsel with an 

appropriate authorization of representation on November 22, 2017 requesting the entire 

pension Plan to which Mr. Wells was entitled. 

35. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) requires that “[a]ny administrator” who does not 

timely (“within thirty days”) respond to provide the document under which a “Plan is 

established or operated” is liable to a sanction “of up to $100.00 per day.” 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(c)(1)(B). The penalty for failure is a fine of “up to $100.00 per day.” This 

penalty is now $110.00 per day, per regulation, 62 Fed. Reg. 40696. To date, the Plan 

administrator has failed to provide the Plan document that was requested on November 

22, 2017. 

36. A second request for the Plan document was made on January 10, 2017 

because the Plan had not been provided.

37. The Defendants continue to refuse to provide the Plan document as 

requested and to date, none has been produced. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this court enter judgment on Henry 

C. Wells’ behalf against the Defendants, jointly and severally as follows:

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 9
10

A. An order that the Defendants pay any and all pension benefits that are 

accrued and payable through the date of the order in a lump sum with 

interest and any increases in the benefits that might be available to the 

Plan participant Wells pursuant to the pension Plan; 

B. That the Defendants pay an appropriate interest rate that will actuarially 

adjust the past due benefits so that there is no forfeiture or cut-back in the 

benefits that would have been payable at the initiation of the normal 

retirement date to the date of the order;

C. That the Defendants be ordered to pay $110.00 per day under 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(c)(1)(B) for the failure to provide the pension Plan as requested as of 

November 22, 2016 to the date it is provided;

D. That the court order injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to continue 

to pay pension benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(A) and to enjoin 

violations under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B) to prevent the discontinuation 

of pension benefits until Mr. Wells is no longer qualified for pension 

benefits under the terms of the pension Plan;

E. To obtain all other further equitable relief available to Henry C. Wells 

including surcharge, reformation, and/or disgorgement including relief for 

any negative tax impact under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3);

F. Provide the Plaintiff with a declaration of rights under the Plan as 

permitted by 29 U.S.C. § 1102 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(A) and 29 U.S.C. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 10
11

§ 1132(a)(1)(B), and

G. Award attorney fees to Henry C. Wells and his counsel for this action 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) and award any and all further relief to 

which Plaintiff may be entitled.

Dated this 26th day of January, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

 

By: /s/ Robert Armand Perez, Sr. __ 

Robert Armand Perez, Sr., Esq. (#0009713)

THE PEREZ LAW FIRM COMPANY, L.P.A.

6921 Fox Hill Lane

Cincinnati, OH 45236-4905

Telephone: (513) 891-8777 

Facsimile: (513) 891-0317 

E-mail: rperez@cinci.rr.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, LORENE D. 

JONES AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND 

ESTATE OF HENRY C. WELLS

Case: 1:18-cv-00057-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 11