NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 13

- 4084

_____________ NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN CORPORATION

v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 469 AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 418 WELFARE FUND

v. ALFRED PASCAREL LA, JR.; JAMES LAMARCA; MICHAEL PAGLIUCA; ALBERT TUTELA; MICHAEL BERZANSKY; JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE Teamsters Local 469 as Successor in Interest to the Teamsters Local 418 Welfare Fund, A ppellant

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2

- 09

- cv - 0 1596) District Judge: Hon orable Susan D. Wigenton

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 12, 2014 Before: FISHER, JORDAN, and HARDIMAN , Circuit Judges

.

(Filed: September 16, 2014 )

_______________ OPINION

_______________2

JORDAN, Circuit Judge

. Teamsters Local 469 Welfare Fund (the “ 469 Fund”) appeals the dismissal of its third

- party com plaint by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

. We will affirm

. I. Background The 469 Fund is the successor

- in

- interest to the Teamsters Local 418 Welfare Fund (the “418 Fund”). The 418 Fund functioned as an employee

- wel fare f und established and maintained under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( ERISA ) , 2 9 U.S.C. § § 1001 to 1461 , to manage health benefits and services for participating Teamsters Local 418 union members and their dependents. A board of trustees admin istered the 418 Fund according to its Declaration of Trust. For several years, the 418 Fund contracted with the National Health Plan Corporation ( “ NHP ” ), a third

- party administrator that oversees health and welfare funds and provides prescription

- bene fit programs. In June 2008, NHP sued the 418 Fund for breach of contract in the Superior Court of New Jer sey, alleging the 418 Fund had not paid all amounts due under its agreements. The 418 Fund counterclaimed, alleging NHP had committed fraud on the 41 8 Fund and had breached its fiduciary duty by charging unreasonably high fees and was unjustly enriched thereby

. T he 418 Fund subsequently merged into the 469 Fund, and the latter replaced the former in the lawsuit. The 469 Fund eventually filed a third

- party complaint against the individual 418 Fund trustees, namely Alfred Pascarella, Jr., James Lamarca, Michael Pagliuca, Albert Tutela, and3

Michael Berzansky (collectively, the “Trustees ” ). The third

- party c omplaint included six breach

- of

- fiduciary

- duty counts: Counts I, IV, V, and VI asserted claims under ERISA; Count II alleged that the Trustees’ breach caused the 469 Fund to suffer economic loss ; and Count III asserted a common

- law breach of fiduciary duty

. The Trustees removed the suit to the Distric t Court on April 6, 2009. On May 12, 2012, NHP filed a motion under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment on the 469 Fund’s counterclaim. The Trustees , meanwhile, filed a motion to dismiss the third

- party claims f or lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, alternatively, for summary judgment. On November 28, 2012, t he District Court granted NHP’s motion for summary judgment and resolved the Trustees’ motion in th eir favor on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds , for lack of standing. Although NHP’s breach

- of

- contract claims remained , the parties settled , and the Court dismissed the case , thus rendering the Court’s order final for purposes of appeal. The 469 Fund then timely ap pealed the dismissal of its third

- party claims against the Trustees. II. Discussion 1 The 469 Fund raises a single issue: whether it has standing to bring ERISA and

common - law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, it contends that it has

s tatutory standing und er ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) (enabling “a

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing. Graden v. Conexant S ys., Inc. , 496 F.3d 291, 294 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007).4

participant or beneficiary ... to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan”) , § 1132(a) (2) ( enabling suit “by the Secretary [ of Labor], or by a [p lan’s] participant, benefici ary or fiduciary for appropriate relief” for breach of fiduciary duty) , and § 1132(a) (3) (allowing “a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary ... to enjoin any act or practice which violates ... the terms of the plan ”) , as we ll as § 1132(d) (providing that “[ a] n employee benefit plan may su e or be sued under [ERISA] as an entity” )

. 2 We have previously held that plaintiffs bringing claims under ERISA must fall within the class that Congress has authorized to sue under that Act , in addition to meeting constituti onal standing requirements

. Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ne. Pa. , 454 F.3d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2006). “ Statutory ” standing has been considered simply a question of statutory interpretation: “the question it asks is w hether Congress has accorded this injured plaintiff the right to sue the defendant to redress his injury.” Graden v. Conexant Sys., Inc. , 496 F.3d 291, 295 (3d Cir. 2007)

. But in Lexmark Int ’ l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. , the Supreme Court clarified that the term “statu tory standing” is “misleading.” 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386

- 88 & n.4 (2014). Rather

2 Alternatively, the 469 Fund claims that the District Court could have exercised federal questio n jurisdiction over this suit , regardless of whether ERISA provides a private right of action in these circu mstances
. The question of whether the district court had subject

- matter jurisdiction is, however, distinct from the question of whether the 469 Fund had “standing to invoke the authority of a federal court.” See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 33 2, 342 (2006) (concluding plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a challenge under the Commerce Clause). To the extent the 469 Fund asks us to fashion an additional breach

- of

- fiduciary

- duty cause of action under federal common law, we decline to do so, as we have already held that ERISA requires no additional, redundant, and judicially

- created causes of action regarding fiduciary duties. Glaziers & Glassworkers Union Local No. 252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridge Sec., Inc. , 93 F.3d 1171, 1184 (3d Cir. 1996).5

than viewing it as a question of standing, we are instead to ask whether a plaintiff “falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue

. ” Id

. at 1387. In other words, Lexmark adopted a straight forward cause

- of

- action analysis, which “r equires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim.” Id. Here, ERISA does not encompass the claims of the 469 Fund. Under a cause

- of

- action analysis , the 469 Fund must plead that it is a participant or beneficiary to proceed under § 1132(a)(1)

. S ee Ne. Dep’t ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund ( ILGWU ), 764 F.2d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1985) (foreclosing a fund’s standing t o sue on behalf of its members). The 469 Fund does not argue that it characterize d itself as a plan participant or beneficiary in its third

party c omplai nt , but it says that our earlier precedent in ILGWU is distinguishable because that case’s holding was limited to suits between pension funds. T hat holding , however, was not so limited

. See id. ( generally interpreting § 1132 to “be read narrowly and lite rally” ). Thus, the 469 Fund cannot bring claims under § 1132(a)(1). Regarding § 1132(a)(2) and (3), the 469 Fund must plead that it is a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary

. S ee Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal

. , 463 U.S. 1, 27 (1983) (“ERISA carefully enumerates the parties entitled to seek relief under [§ 1132]; it does not provide anyone other than participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries with an express cause of action ... .” ). T he 469 Fund argues that it is a fiduciary and is thus entitled to bring claims under those provisions. It is mistaken. Nowhere in the third

- p arty c omplaint or elsewhere in the record did the 4696

Fund refer to itself as a fiduciary or assert that it “exercises any discretionary aut hority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets,” or “has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21 )(A ) ( defining “fiduciary” )

. It therefore cannot pr oceed under § 1132(a)(2) or (3)

. 3 Finally, regarding § 1132(d), we agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that “[s]ubsection (d)(1) only estab lishes the right of employee benefit plans created by ERISA to sue and be sued like corpor ations and other legal entities”; it does not provide an independent right of action under ERISA

. Pressroom Unions

– Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Cont’ l Assuran ce Co. , 700 F.2d 889 , 893 (2d Cir. 1983)

. The structure of the provision suggests that § 1132(d) should not be read
to create a cause of action

. T he statute already enumerates in § 1132(a) which persons may bring an ERISA action , and t he 469 Fund’s propo sed reading of § 1132(d) would render the restrictive sub categories of § 1132(a) superfluous . Accordingly, the 469 Fund

can not bring a breach

- of

- fiduciary

- duty claim under § 1132(d) alone. III. Conclusion W e will therefore affirm the District Court’s d ismissal of the 469 Fund ’s third

party complaint

.

3 Because the 469 Fund did not properly plead its status as a fiduciary , we do not reach the issue of whether a fund may be a fiduciary for itself.