FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15799 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 2 7 8 - CV - CG C A R O L - L Y N N F E T T E R H O F F , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s L I B E R T Y L I F E A S S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D ef endant -C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lle e , ST . PAUL FI RE AN D M ARI NE I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 17, 2008)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P ro-s e app el l antC ar ol -L ynn F ett erho ff appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of he rc om pl a i ntf

orbe ne f i t s unde rhe re m pl oy e rS t . P a ul F i r e a nd M a r i ne I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny ’ s ( “ S t . P a ul ” ) l ong- t e rm di s abi l i ty be ne f i t s pl a n, i ns ur e d by L i be r ty L i f

e A s s ur a nc e C om pa ny ( “ L i be rty L i f e ” ) , unde rthe E m pl oy e e R e t i r e m e nt I n c o m e S e c u r ity A c t o f

1 9 7 4 ( “E R I S A ” ) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . F e tte rh o f f h a d b e e n r e c e iv in g lo n g - te rm d is ab ility b e n e f its th r o u g h L ib e r ty L i f e f r om 1999 unt i l J ul y 2000, w he n L i be r ty L i f e de ni e d F e tt e rhof

f’ s c l a i m f

or cont i nu ed benefi t s. F ett erho ff appeal ed the deni al and L i berty L i fe no t i fi ed her thati tw ou l d u ph ol d the deni al on Ja nu ary 11, 20 01 . O n M ay3, 20 06 , F ett erho ff fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstL i berty L i fe and S t . P aul i n w hi ch she a l l eged thather po l i cyqu al i fi ed as a benefi t s pl an un der E R IS A and thatL i berty L i fe had arbi tra ri l y a nd i n b ad fa i th rej ec t ed her cl ai m for benefi t s. L i berty L i fe answ er ed the com pl ai ntand averre d thatthe com pl ai ntw as t i m e- barr ed, and fi l ed a c ou nt er c l a i m a ga i ns tF e tt e rhof

f . F e tt e rhof

f the n s oughtt o a m e nd he rc om pl a i ntt o a dd w r ongf ul di s c ha r ge , br e a c h of

f i duc i a ry duty , a nd puni t i ve da m a ge c l a i m s . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d th e c la im f o rp u n itiv e d a m a g e s , d e n ie d th e m o tio n to a m e n d th e c o m p la in t a s f u tile , a n d d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t a s tim e - b a rr e d . T h is3

ap p e a l f o llo w e d . 1. M ot i on t o A m e nd W e genera l l y r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o am end a com pl ai ntfor a n abus e of di s c r e t i on, butr e vi e w que s t i ons of l a w de novo. W i l l i a m s v. B d. of R egent s of U ni v. S ys . of G a. , 47 7 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). “ A party m ay a m e nd [ i t s ] pl e a di ng onc e a s am a tt e rof c our s e a ta ny t i m e be f

or e ar e s pons i ve p lead in g is se rv ed .” F ed .R .C iv .P . 1 5 (a ). A ftera r es p o n siv e p lead in g is se rv ed , “ a pa r ty m a y a m e nd i t s pl e a di ng onl y w i th the oppos i ng pa r ty ’ s w r i tt e n c ons e ntorthe c o u r t’s le a v e . . . w h e n ju s tic e s o r e q u ir e s .” I d . T h e c o u r t m a y d e n y am o tio n to am end o n n um er ou s groun ds, i ncl ud i ng fut i l i ty of the am endm ent . B re w er G i orgi o v . P rodu ce rs V i deo, Inc. , 21 6 F . 3d 12 81 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . A n a m e ndm e nti s f ut i l e w he r e i tf

a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

or r e l i e f . D a e w oo M ot orA m . , I nc . v. G e ne r a l M ot or s C orp. , 459 F . 3d 1249, 1260- 61 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 20 32 (200 7). U nd erE R IS A , a benefi ci ary m aycom m ence a c i vi l ac t i on “ t o rec ov er be ne f i t s due t o hi m unde rthe t e rm s of hi s pl a n, t o e nf

or c e hi s r i ght s unde rthe t e rm s of the pl a n, ort o c l a r i f

y hi s r i ght s t o f

utur e be ne f

i t s unde rthe t e rm s of

the pl a n. ” 29 U . S . C . § 1132( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . F ur the r , abe ne f i c i a ry m a y br i ng a n a c t i on f or b r e a c h o f

f i d u c i a ry d u ty u n d e r2 9 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 9 . 2 9 U . S. C. § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . ERI SA4

d o e s n o tp r o v i d e f

o re x tr a - c o n tr a c tu a l r e l i e f o rp u n i t i v e d a ma g e s u n d e r2 9 U . S. C. §§ 1109, 1132( a ) ( 1) ( B ) , or1140. M a s s . M ut . L i f e I ns . C o. v. R us s e l l , 473 U . S . 134, 144, 105 S . C t . 3085, 3091, 87 L . E d. 2d 96 ( 1985) ( § 1109) ; G odf r e y v. B e l l S outh T e l e c om m s . , I nc . , 89 F . 3d 755, 761 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( §§ 1132 a nd 1 1 4 0 ) . A dd i t i on al l y, E R IS A cont ai ns no st atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or cl ai m s t o rec ov er b e n e f its u n d e r§ 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o rc la im s o f w r o n g f u l te rm in a tio n u n d e r§ 1 1 4 0 . N or thl a ke R e g’ l M e d. C tr . v. W a f f l e H ous e S y s . E m pl oy e e B e ne f i tP l a n, 160 F . 3d 1301, 1303 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ; M us i c k v. G oody e a rT i r e & R ubbe rC o. , I nc . , 81 F . 3d 136, 137- 38 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . H ow e ve r , unde rthe s t a tut e , apl a i nt i f f c a nnot c o m m e n c e a n a c tio n f

o rb r e a c h o f

f id u c ia ry d u ty “th r e e y e a r s a f te rth e e a r lie s t d a te o n w h i c h th e p l a i n t i f

f h a d a c tu a l k n o w l e d g e o f th e b r e a c h o rv i o l a t i o n . ” 2 9 U . S. C. § 1 11 3(2). A ctual kn ow l edge requi re s m ore than m er e “ no t i ce thatsom ethi ng w as aw ry . ” B rock v. N el l i s, 80 9 F . 2d 75 3, 75 5 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ). Inst ea d, the pl ai nt i ff

“ m us tha ve ha d s pe c i f

i c know l e dge of

the a c tua l br e a c h of

duty upon w hi c h he s ue s . ” I d. S t at e l aw cl ai m s are co m p l et el y p reem p t ed b y E R IS A w h ere (1 ) th ere i s a r e l e va ntE R I S A pl a n, ( 2) the pl a i nt i f f ha s s t a ndi ng t o s ue unde rtha tpl a n, ( 3) the d e f e n d a n t is a n E R I S A e n tity , a n d ( 4 ) th e c o m p la in t s e e k s c o m p e n s a to ry r e lie f a k in“A c ourt is generally limit ed to reviewingwhat is within the four c orner s of the 1 complaint on a motion to dism iss.” Bic kley v. Carema

rk RX, Inc., 461 F .3d 1325, 1329 n.7 5 t o tha ta va i l abl e unde r§ 1132( a ) , w hi c h i s norm a l l y ac l a i m f orbe ne f i t s unde rthe pl an. S ee Jones v. L M R Int ’ l , Inc. , 45 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). If a s t a t e i ns ur a nc e l a w i s c om pl e t e l y pr e e m pt e d by E R I S A , the e xe m pt i on of 29 U . S . C . § 1144( b) ( 2) ( a ) doe s notappl y . C ott on v. M a s s . M ut . L i f e I ns . C o. , 402 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 82 n. 14 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). C om pl et el y pre em pt ed st at e l aw cl ai m s a re r e c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s E R I S A c l a i m s a nd a r i s e unde rf e de r a l l a w . J one s , 457 F . 3d a t1178. H e r e , th e c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n i e d th e mo t i o n t o a me n d th e c o mp l a i n tb e c a u s e Fe tt e rh o f f’ s a me n d e d c l a i ms w e r e f ut i l e . A ny s t a t e - l a w c l a i m of w r ongf ul t e rm i na t i on, ba d f

a i th, br e a c h of contra ct , or brea ch of fi du ci ary duty w as com pl et el y pre em pt ed by E R IS A and w as t i m e- barr ed by the po l i cy ’ s one-y ea r c on tra ctual l i m i t at i on s per i od . F urther, F ett erho ff’ s c l ai m for bre ac h o f f i du ci ary duty w as t i m e- barr ed by E R IS A ’ s three year st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. 2 . M o t i o n t o D i sm i ss W e r evi ew de no vo a “ di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss un der [ F e d. R . C i v. P . ] 12( b) ( 6) f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m , a c c e pt i ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c o m p la in t a s tru e a n d c o n s tru in g th e m in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p la in tif

f .” 1(1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ). “If, o na m o ti o nfo r j u dgm ento nth e p l ea di n gs , m att er s o ut s i d e th e p l ea di n gs

arepresented to and not excluded by the cour t, the motion mus t be treated as onefor summary judgment under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56.” F ed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). However, a district c ourt may consider a document attache d to a motion to dis miss withoutconver ting the motion into a motion for summa ry judgment where , a s h ere , th edo cument i s c entral totheplaintif f’ s c laim, and

its authenticity

is not challeng ed. Da

y v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Be causeFetterhoff

failed to a

rgue the issue of

punitive damag es in her initial brief , the 2 issue is deemed a

bandoned on a

ppeal. 6 C a s tr o v . S e c ’y o f

H o m e la n d S e c ., 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . F ett erho ff

ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng her i ni t i al c o mp l a i n ta s t i me - b a rr e d b e c a u s e ( a ) th e p o l i c y w a s n o tc o v e r e d b y ERI SA pu rs uantt o 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 32 1(b)(11), (b) the po l i cy ’ s one-y ea r c on tra ctual l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od c onf

l i c t e d w i th the s t a t e ’ s s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons , r e qui r i ng the courtt o app l y the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s pursuantt o the po l i cy ’ s c on form i ty c l ause , a nd ( c ) a nd L i be r ty L i f

e a nd S t . P a ul f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de he rw i th not i c e of he rr i ght t o s u e f o rb e n e f i t s a n d th e p o l i c y ’ s t i me l i mi t a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 9 C. F. R. § 2 56 0. 50 3-1(g). 2 U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . F i r s t , the doc tr i ne of j ud i ci al es t op pel prevent s aparty f rom pres ent i ng an i ncon si st entpo si t i on af t er s uc c e s s f ul l y m a i nt a i ni ng tha tpos i t i on i n a n e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ng. N e w H a m ps hi r e v. M ai ne, 53 2 U . S . 74 2, 74 9, 12 1 S . C t . 18 08 , 18 14 , 14 9 L . E d. 2d 96 8 (20 01 ). Judi ci al e s to p p e l is ap p r o p r ia te w h e r e ( 1 ) th e p a r ty ’s la te rp o s itio n is “c le a r ly in c o n s is te n t” w i th i t s e a r l i e rpos i t i on, ( 2) the pa r ty s uc c e e de d i n pe r s ua di ng the c our tt o a c c e pt7

i t s e a r l i e rpr opos i t i on, a nd ( 3) the pa r ty w oul d de r i ve a n unf a i ra dva nt a ge or i m po se an un fa i r detri m enton the op po si ng party i f notes t op ped. Id. , 53 2 U . S . at 749- 51. T hus , F e tt e rhof f w a s j udi c i a l l y e s t oppe d f r om a r gui ng tha tE R I S A di d not control the po l i cybecause hercom pl ai ntprem i se d rel i ef on E R IS A and the di stri ct c o u r t r e lie d o n th a t p r e m is e in ru lin g o n h e rm o tio n to a m e n d . S e c ond, a s not e d above , E R I S A doe s notpr ovi de as t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

or s ui t s br oughtunde r29 U . S . C . § 1132( a ) ( 1) ( B ) t o r e c ove rbe ne f i t s . N or thl a ke R e g ’l M e d . C tr ., 1 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 3 . A lth o u g h w e g e n e r a lly ap p ly th e m o s t c lo s e ly a na l ogous l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, i n thi s c a s e c ontr a c tl a w , f r om the s t a t e i n w hi c h the a c t i on w a s br ought , H a rr i s on v. D i gi t a l H e a l th P l a n, 183 F . 3d 1235, 1238- 39, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 1999) , w he r e the pa r t i e s ha ve c ontr a c tua l l y a gr e e d upon al i m i t a t i ons p er io d , b o rr o w in g a s tate’s statu te o f lim it atio n s is u n n ec es sa ry . N o rth lak e R eg ’l M e d . C tr ., 1 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 3 . H er e, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y det erm i ned thatthe po l i cy ’ s c on tra ctual on ey e a rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s ap p lie d b e c a u s e it d id n o t c o n f lic t w ith th e s ta te ’s s ta tu te of l i m i t at i on s f

or contra ct s. T hu s, because F ett erho ff fi l ed her com pl ai ntm ore than on e y ea r a ft ershe e xh aust ed her adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es w i th L i berty L i fe , her c om pl a i ntw a s t i m e - ba rr e d unde rthe pol i c y ’ s one - y e a rl i m i t a t i on pe r i od f orf i l i ng l e ga l a c t i on. F i na l l y , the not i c e pr ovi s i ons of 29 C . F . R . § 2560. 503- 1( g) di d not8

ap p ly b e c a u s e F e tte rh o f f f ile d h e rc la im f

o rb e n e f its p r io rto J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 2 . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M.