2001. A claim arising under ERISA should not be dismissed, but rather interpreted as arising
solely under ERISA. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1077-78 (7th Cir. 1992);
Shannon v. Shannon, 965 ¥.2d 542, 553 (7th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, I dismiss Count I to the
extent it asserts a claim under the Illinois law of contracts, and treat Count | as stating a claim
solely under ERISA § 503(a)(1)(B).

Regarding Count U, the Seventh Circuit has held on numerous occasions that claims
brought under the Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS
505/1 et. seq., that relate to an ERISA employee benefits plan are preempted by § 514(a). See
Anderson v. Humana, Inc., 24 F.3d 889, 891 (7th Cir. 1994); DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Ass.
Soe. of U.S., 920 F.2d 457, 468 (7th Cir. 1990); Weatherly v, Mlinois Bell Telephone, 856 F.Supp.
1301 (N.D. Tl. 1994). Clearly, Count II relates to the Plan, which plaintiffs concede is an ERISA
plan, because it challenges modifications to benefits level undertaken in January 2001 that are
connected with the alleged Plan. The connection exists by virtue of the effect of the
modifications on the bencfit levels to which plaintiffs claim a lifetime entitlement. Moreover,
but for the existence of the Plan, Fiatallis clearly would not be liable. Accordingly, Count Ll is
preempted by § 514(a) and is hereby dismissed.

Regarding Count IIL, the Seventh Circuit has further held that ERISA preempts state
claims for declaratory relief that relate to an ERISA benefits plan. See Lister v. Stark, 890 F 2d
941, 942 (7th Cir. 1989); Weatherly, 856 F.Supp. at 1304-05. Indced, the Supreme Court has

stated (hat § 503(a)(3)(B) “has been interpreted as crcating a cause of action for a declaratory

judgment.” Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Calif. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for



Business Practices Act,” arises under 815 ILCS 505/1 et seg., commonly known as the [lJinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. This claim asserts damages arising from
Fiatallis’ alleged false promiscs regarding the January 2001 changes to the level of retirees’
medical benefits. Finally, Count Ll, entitled “Declaratory Relief,” is a result of the alleged
breach of promises in January 2001 and arises under 735 TLCS 5/2-701. Fiatallis argues that
cach of these claims is entirely or in part preempted by ERTSA § 514(a), which provides that
ERISA preempts state law claims that relate to an ERISA employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C.

§ 1144(a).

Regarding Count I, the Scventh Circuit has held that ERISA preempts state law breach of
contract claims that relate to an ERISA employee benefits plan. See Dranchak vy, Akzo Nobel
Inc., 88 F.3d 457, 459-60 (7th Cir. 1996); Miller v. Taylor Insulation Co., 39 F.3d 755, 758 (7th
Cir. 1994); Tolle vy. Carroll Touch, Ine., 977 F.2d 1129, 1136 (7th Cir. 1992); Panuras v. Liquid
Carhonic Industries Corp., 74 F.3d 786, 795 (7th Cir. 1996); Kreutzer v. A.O. Smith Corp., 951
F.2d 739, 743 (7th Cir. 1991). Here, the breach of contract claim in Count | relates to an FRISA
plan and is thus preempted by § 514(a). This does not mean, however, that Count 1 in its entirety
should be dismissed. In substance, Count I alleges that Fiatallis breached the terms of an
employee benefits plan regulated by ERISA when it implemented modifications to benefits levels
in January 2001. The Supreme Court has stated that, under ERISA, the substance and not the
form of an articulated claim will control whether it states a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co, v, Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987). Herc, Count Tin substance
states a claim under § 503(a)(1)(B) because plaintiffs seek to recover benefits and enforce and

clarify a tight to certain level of bencfits, under their ERTSA plan in effect prior to January 1,



Southern California, 463 U.S. 1 n. 31 (1983). Accordingly, Count TIT is preempted by § 514(a)
and is hereby dismissed.
Motion to Sirike Count J Jury Demand

There is no right to a jury trial for benefits under § 503(a)(1)(B) because of the cquitable
nature of ERISA. See Sofo v, Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 241-42 (7th Cir. 1994);
Brown v. Retirement Committee of Briggs & Stratton Retirement Plan, 797 F.2d 521, 527 (7th
Cir. 1986); Wardle v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 627 F.2d 820
(7th Cir. 1980); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers’ Intern. v. Amoco Corp., No. 93 C 5929, 1996
WL 563447, at *2 (N.D, ILL. Sept. 27, 1996). Here, plaintiffs demand a jury trial on Count I, but
this claim now stands as a claim solely under § 503(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, this claim does not
entitle plaintiffs to a jury trial.
Motion to Strike Count I Prayer for Relief to the Extent It Demands Extracontractua] Damages

Extracontractual damages cannot be recovered in ERISA actions. See Senese v. Chicago
Area IB, of T. Pension Fund, 237 F.3d 819 (7th Cir, 2001); Harsch v. Eisenberg, 956 F.2d 651,
655 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief in Count L, which now stands as a claim
solely under ERISA § 503(a)(1)(B), includes a demand that judgment be entered against Fiatallis
“in an amount that will fairly compensate the class for the damages incurred to date ... which are
presently cstimated to exceed Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000).” This

prayer for relief includes the very extracontractual damages that cannot be recovered under

ERISA. To that cxtent, the prayer for relief in Count | is stricken.



Minute Order For (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlingis

Name Ande Tames B. Zagel Stn ee Oe

CASE NUMBER 02 C69 DATE 4/10/2003
CASE BLAND vs. FLIATALLIS NORTH AMERICA
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motiun, e.g.,pluintitY, dedendant, 3rd party plainciff, ancl (b) state brielly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being prescnted.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) q Brief in support of motiondue

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion duc___._ Reply to answer brief duc

(4) Oo Ruling/Ilearing on set for at

(3) i | Status hearing set for 5/12/2003 at 10:00 A.M...

(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for}on_ at

(8) Oo (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continucd to ___all .

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

OFRCP4(m) Ol Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(ay1) OO FRCP41(a)(2),

ao {Other docket entry] Motion (5-1 and 14) to strike jury demand and to strike count I prayer
for relief regarding extra contractual damages is granted. Motion (7-1) to dismiss all state law
claims is granted.

(1) ff [For further detail sec order attached to the original minute arder. |

No notices required, advised in open court Document

Number

‘No notices required. number of notices

Notices maited by judge's stat

“APR 1 5 7003

ale yalled wow

Notiticd counsel by telephone.

Y | Docketing to mail nouices.

Mait AQ 450 form, air
yyeed .

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

courtroom
pw deputy’s
initials

¢

Date/time received in -
contral Clerk's Office ovine we



For the aforementioned reasons, Fiatallis’ Motion to Dismiss All State Law (Non-ERISA)
Claims in the Complaint, Motion to Strike Count T Jury Demand, and Motion to Strike Count I

Prayer for Relief to the Extent It Demands Extracontractual Damages arc GRANTED.

James B. Zagel 5, 0
United States District Tidge

pate: [{ Lal 2605

6



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

LOU BLAND, EDWARD HODGMAN,
ROBERT LAKE, GERALDINE ROSATO
and ERVIN SHORES, for themselves and
for all others similarly situated,

No. 02 C 0069

Plaintiffs, Judge James B. Zagel

te ‘

vy. eo

FIATALLIS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ard \

Defendant. } aa 5 103
are >
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Hiatallis North America, Inc. (“Fiatallis”) is a corporation headquartered in Carol Stream," “an
Illinois. Fiatallis formerly had facilities in Deerfield and Springfield, Illinois but sSoeedt them,
along with a parts facility in Caro] Stream, in 1985. In conjunction with these facility closings,
Fiatallis offered scparation packages to approximately 1131 cmployces asked to retire from its
Deerfield, Springfield, and Carol Stream locations. Plaintiffs are retirees or spouses of retirees
from this group, and they bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly
situated individuals. In a three-count complaint, they seek to recover the benefits to which they
claim they are enlitled under the Fiatallis’ employee benefit plan known as the “Retirement and
Pension Plan for Fiatallis North America, Inc. Employees” (the “Plan”), which they assert is
regulated by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et.

seq. Prior to the transfer of this case from the United States District Court for the Central District

of Llinois, Fiatallis moved to dismiss all state law (non-ERISA) claims in the complaint, to strike



plaintiffs’ jury demand as to Count 1, and to strike plaintiffs’ Count I prayer for extracontractual
damages.

Before addressing these motions, T note that J am probably bound by a previous decision
in this matter holding that plaintiffs’ complaint falls within ERISA. See Bland v. Fi iatallis North
America, Inc., No. 01-3236, order of October 29, 2001, at *5 (C.D. Ul.). However, even were |
not bound by this decision, I would hold the same. Plaintiffs seek to recover medical insurance
benefits that they were entitled to before the January 2001 modifications. The Plan, as plaintiffs
frecly admit in their complaint, is a fully qualified employee welfare benefits plan under ERISA.
As such, plaintiffs are eligible to bring a claim under ERISA § 502(a), which authorizes actions
for benefits under a plan, since they are plan participants or spouses of plan participants. Juss v.
Prudential Health Care Plan, 88 F.3d 1482, 1489 (7th Cir. 1996). In addition, plaintiffs’ Count 1
is a claim for denial of benefits under the Plan and thus falls within the scope of an ERISA
provision that plaintiffs can enforce via § 502(a). /d. Finally, Count 1 will require that I interpret
the ERISA plan to determine what benefits plaintiffs had at the time of retirement and to
determine whether Fiatallis had the authority to make the January 2001 modifications to the
benefits package under the Plan. Therefore, this claim falls within ERISA.

Motion to Dismiss All State Law (Non-ERISA) Claims

Plaintiffs allege three counts in their complaint. Count I, entitled “Breach of Contract,”
asserts that Fiatallis made promises and representations, in conjunction with the scparation
packages and on other occasions and on which plaintiffs relied, and then breached these promises
and representations in January 2001 by modi fying and reducing the level of plaintiffs’ medical

bencfits under the Plan. Count II, entitled “Violation of [llinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive