*

Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial Dismissal

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT FISHER, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1297-L

§

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, §

 §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial Dismissal

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Supporting Brief, filed August 2, 2005. Having considered the

motion, brief, record and applicable law, the court grants Defendant Aetna Life Insurance

Company’s Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).*

This lawsuit arises from the termination of benefits under a long-term disability plan

established and maintained by Texas Instruments, Inc. pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). On June 24, 2005, Plaintiff Robert

Fisher (“Plaintiff” or “Fisher”) filed this lawsuit against Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company

(“Defendant” or “Aetna”) asserting a claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and also

asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for Defendant’s alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. §§

1133 and 1140. 

On August 2, 2005, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). As grounds for partial dismissal, Defendant argues that a plaintiff who has an avenue of

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01297-L Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 32
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

redress under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and seeks to recover benefits thereunder may not also bring

a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. See Def. Mot. at 2. Having reviewed the

motion and the applicable legal authority, the court determines that Defendant’s motion should be

granted. It is well-established that an “ERISA plaintiff may bring a private action for breach of

fiduciary duty only when no other remedy is available.” Rhorer v. Raytheon Engineers &

Constructors, Inc., 181 F.3d 634, 639 (5th Cir. 1999)(citing Vanity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489,

510-16 (1996) and Tolson v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 141 F.3d 604, 610 (5th Cir. 1998)). Here, in

addition to seeking damages under § 1132(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff is seeking damages on his claim for

breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty should be

dismissed. See Rohrer, 181 F.3d at 639 (“because § 1132(a)(1)(B) affords [plaintiff] an avenue for

legal redress, she may not simultaneously maintain her claim for breach of fiduciary duty”); Tolson,

141 F.3d at 610-11 (claims for breach of fiduciary duty precluded due to redress being available

through claim for benefits).

Accordingly, the court grants Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial

Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is hereby

dismissed with prejudice. 

It is so ordered this 30th day of August, 2005.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01297-L Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 33