Elmer Svec in 1987 and the filing of this lawsuit. We address this issue briefly in anticipation of
Svec’s filing of an amended complaint.

“Laches consists of two elements: (1) a lack of diligence by the plaintiff, and (2)
prejudice resulting from the delay. Under this two-prong approach, the plaintiff bears the burden
of explaining his delay in bringing suit. If the delay is inexcusable, then the defendant must show
prejudice.” Zelany v. Lyng, 853 F.2d 540, 541 (7th Cir. 1988). Because the Fund, to succeed on
its laches defense, must show that it suffered harm from the claimed undue delay, the issue is not
one that can be dealt with in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, if the Fund chooses
to raise the issue in the future, it should do so as part of a motion for summary judgment under
Rule 56.

Cc Claim against Fund manager

Defendant Coli, the Fund’s manager, argues that he is not a proper defendant in this case.
The Court agrees that Svec’s complaint does not set forth a proper basis for a claim against Coli
individually. The proper defendant in a claim for pension benefits under ERISA is the plan
itself. See Mein v. Carus Corp., 241 F.3d 581, 584 (7th Cir. 2001). The claim against Coli is
therefore dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss, but also grants

the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 30, 2001. If plaintiff fails to do

so, the dismissal will become a final judgment.

“YAU UWE,

Date: July 16, 2002 MATTHEW F. KENNBLLY
United States District Judge



otherwise without merit, he has pleaded himself out of court.” Tregenza, 12 F.3d at 718. The
statute of limitations in ERISA cases ordinarily runs from the date the plaintiff's claim for
benefits is denied. Daill, 100 F.3d at 65. But Svec’s complaint says nothing about the date on
which she claimed or was denied benefits — indeed her complaint does not even say that she
made an application. Thus the only date we have to go by is 1987, the year Elmer died. Svec did
not file this suit until 15 years had passed after Elmer’s death. Based on these allegations,

Svec’s complaint is time-barred. The Court therefore grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. We

will, however, give Svec leave to amend her complaint to attempt to cure the deficiency.

7 “{Ujnder Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court may grant leave to

amend pleadings and such leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Larkin v.
Galloway, 266 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2001).
Defendants’ motion indicates that Svec made a claim for benefits in 1998, eleven years

after Elmer’s death; defendants argue that because the claim was made so late, the ordinary rule

providing that the statute of limitations runs from the date the claim was denied should not apply.
We do not address that argument at this time because it is based on facts that are outside the
scope of Svec’s complaint (which, as we have noted, makes no mention of an application or
denial). But if and when Svec amends her complaint, she should include allegations providing
the dates of her application for benefits and the denial, and setting forth why no earlier
application was made.

B. Laches

Defendants also argue that Svec’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. Specifically,

they argue that they are unfairly prejudiced by the fifteen year time lapse between the death of


obi. 25, SRE

Minute Order Form (06/97)

: United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Namect signed dee | Matthew F. Kennelly _| Siting Judge ott
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1640 DATE 7/16/2002
CASE SVEC vs. Board of Trustees
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) go Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___ at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_ssetfor___—_aat

(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon____—setfor_——at_.
(7) im Trial{set for/re-set for] on__at

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at _

(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) O General Rule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss, but also grants the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint on or before 7/30/02. If plaintiff fails to do so, the dismissal will become a final judgment.
Status hearing set to 8/19/02 at 9:30 a.m.

a1) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

Document
Number.

No notices required. number of notices:

JUL,,2,2, 2002

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

of | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

oy “sid St
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. uns ! (Sis
3
courtroom . ae 20 date mailed notice
OR deputy’s Heli Ke 6) int
initials ave 7
ed in
ot Ogee Office trailing deputy intals



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
ANNE SVEC, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 02 C 1640

)

v. )

)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF )

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 727 )
PENSION FUND and WILLIAM COLI, )
Fund Manager, )
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Anne Svec has filed a complaint under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§
1132 (a)(1)(B), against the Board of Trustees of Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund
and William Coli, the Fund’s manager, seeking an award of pension benefits. Defendants have
moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss but also grants Svec leave to amend
her complaint.

Facts

Anne Svec is the widow of Elmer Svec, who was a licensed funeral director, embalmer,
and chauffeur, and a member of Local No. 727 from January 7, 1942 until his death in 1987.
Elmer Svec was an employee of James J. Svec & Sons Funeral Home and had not retired when
he died. Anne Svec alleges that Elmer paid union dues for the duration of his membership in.

Local No. 727, that as a member of the Local he was entitled to a pension, that she is the


fees

designated beneficiary of his pension, and that neither she nor Elmer ever received any pension

benefits. Svec filed this lawsuit on March 6, 2002.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Svec’s claim, arguing that it is barred by the statute of
limitations. They contend that the statute had expired before Svec ever applied for benefits.
Defendants argue alternatively that the doctrine of laches bars Svec’s claim. Finally, Coli has
moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing that he is not a proper defendant in an action
under ERISA to recover pension benefits.

Discussion
A. Statute of Limitations

Defendants argue that Svec’s claim is time-barred because the ten-year statue of
limitations that applies to claims under §1132 (a)(1)(B), see Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers Local
73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62, 65 (7th Cir. 1996); Jenkins v. Local 705, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan, 713 F.2d 247, 253 (7th Cir. 1983), began to run in 1987
upon Elmer Svec’s death. Defendants further argue that if Svec had exercised due diligence in
determining whether she was entitled to any pension benefits, she would have learned of the
Fund’s position regarding her entitlement prior to the end of the statue of limitations.

A plaintiff's failure to plead in her complaint facts demonstrating the timeliness of the
suit does not entitle a defendant to the dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim. “The
statue of limitations is an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff is not required to negate an
affirmative defense in his complaint.” Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 12
F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993).

On the other hand, “if the plaintiff pleads facts that show that his suit is time-barred or