FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT AUGUST 24, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 10235

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -008 89 -C V -J O F -1 M A R K P O P O W S K I, A s F i du ci ary of the U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors I nc. E m pl oyee H e a lth B e n e f

it P la n , T H E C O M M E R C E G R O U P , T h i rd P arty A dm i ni s tr a t orof

the U ni t e d D i s tr i but or s I nc . E m pl oy e e H e a l th B e n e f it P la n , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s D E B O R A H P A R R O T T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ N o. 05- 13344

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 44 -C V -H L M -4 B L U E C R O S S B L U E S H I E L D O F S O U T H C A R O L I N A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t,Honora ble C. Ashley

Royal, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. 2

v ersu s J O S U E C A R I L L O , V I N C E N T E C A R I L L O , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ (A u gu st 24 , 20 06 ) B ef ore B IR C H and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R O Y A L , D i stri ctJudg e. * B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: A pp el l ant s M ark P op ow ski , as fi du ci ary of the U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors, Inc. E m pl oyee H ea l th B enef i tP l an (“ U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors P l an”) , and t he C om m er ce G r o u p , a s its th ir d - p a r ty a d m in is tr a to r , a n d B lu e C r o s s B lu e S h ie ld o f S o u th C a r ol i na ( “ B C B S ” ) , a s f i duc i a r y of

the M oha w k C a rpe tC orpor a t i on H e a l th a nd W el fa re B enef

i t s P l an (“ M oh aw k P l an”) , sued re spec t i ve appel l ee s, D eborah P arrot t , and Josue and V i ce nt e C ar i l l o, un der s ec t i on 50 2(a) (3) of the E m pl oyee R et i re m entIncom e S ec uri ty A ctof 19 74 (“ E R IS A ”) , 29 U . S . C . § 1 13 2(a) (3),3

s e e ki ng r e i m bur s e m e ntf orm e di c a l e xpe ns e s pa i d by e a c h pl a n on be ha l f of the resp ect i v e ap p el l ees. T h ey n o w ap p eal th e g ran tb y th e d i stri ctco u rti n each case of a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , as w el l as the deni al of ot her r equest ed re l i ef , base d o n a det erm i nat i on thatno ne of the cl ai m s i nv ol ved

“ a ppr opr i a t e e qui t a bl e r e l i e f ” a s i s r e qui r e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m unde rtha ts e c t i on of E R I S A . I d. B a s e d on the S upr e m e C our t ’ s c l a r i f i c a t i on i n S e r e bof

f v. M i dA t l a nt i c M e di c a l S e r vi c e s , I nc . , ___ U . S . ___, 126 S . C t . 1869 ( 2006) , of the s c ope of “ approp ri at e e qu i t abl e r el i ef ” provi ded b y § 11 32 (a )( 3), w e f i nd thatthe di stri ct c our te r r e d i n di s m i s s i ng the c l a i m s of P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup, but n o ti n d i s m i s s i n g th e c l a i m s o f B C B S . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we R E VE R S E a n d R E MAND f orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on a s t o the c l a i m s br oughtby P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup, butA F F I R M the di s tr i c tc our ti n i t s di s m i s s a l of the c l a i ms b r o u g h tb y BCBS. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . P o p o w s k i v . P a r r o tt P a r r ot t , a n e m pl oy e e of U ni t e d D i s tr i but or s , I nc . , w a s i nj ur e d i n a n a c c i de nt i n M ay 20 03 . T he U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors P l an al l egedl y pai d $ 15 2, 88 9. 65 i n m edi ca l e xpe ns e s on he rbe ha l f

i n c onne c t i on w i th the a c c i de nt . P R 1- 3 a t1. P r i ort o theF or purp os e s o f c lari ty, b e c a

us ethetw o c a se s h avebe e n c on so lid ate d o n a pp e a l, 1 citations to the rec ord in ca se number 05- 10235 will be designated by “PR” followed by

the volume and docket numbers and c itations to the re cord in c ase number 05-13344 will be de signate d b y

“ B R”fo llo we d b y

thevo lum eand

do c ke t numbers . 4 U ni t e d D i s tr i but or s P l a n m a ki ng a ny pa y m e nt , how e ve r , P a r r ot ts i gne d a r e i m bur s e m e nta gr e e m e nts t a t i ng tha ts he unde r s t ood tha tthe pl a n ha s a c l a i m orl i e n a ga i ns t , a nd the f i r s tr i ghtt o r e c e i ve r e i m bur s e m e nt f r om the P a r t i c i pa ntf

or , a ny r e c ove r y , s e t t l e m e nt , orj udgm e nt obt a i ne d by P a r t i c i pa ntf r om ora ga i ns ta ny pa r ty a tf a ul ti n the [ a c c i de nta ti s s ue ] orf

r om a ny othe rs our c e f

orthe a m ountpa i d by the P l an as m ed i cal cl ai m s. P R 1- 1, E xh. B a t1. T hi s a gr e e m e nte c hoe d the P l a n’ s ow n s ubr oga t i on a nd 1 r e im b u r s e m e n t p r o v is io n , w h ic h s ta te d th a t i n a ny e ve nt , the P l a n ha s a l i e n on a ny a m ountr e c ove r e d by the C ov er ed P er son w hether or notdesi gn at ed as paym entfor m edi ca l e x p e n s e s . T h is lie n s h a ll r e m a in in e f f e c t u n til th e P la n is r e p a id in f u ll. T he C ove r e d P e r s on . . . m us tr e pa y t o the P l a n the be ne f i t s pa i d on hi s orhe rbe ha l f

outof the r e c ove r y m a de f

r om the thi r d pa r ty or i nsurer . I d. , E xhs . A , G a t63. T he P l a n f ur the re xpl a i ns tha t“ [ t ] he s e r i ght s pr ovi de the P l a n w i th a pr i or i ty ove ra ny f unds pa i d by a thi r d pa r ty t o a C ove r e d P e r s on r e l a t i ve t o the I nj ur y orS i c kne s s , i nc l udi ng a pr i or i ty ove ra ny c l a i m f ornonm e di c a l orde nt a l c ha r ge s , a t t or ne y ’ s f e e s , orothe rc os t s a nd e xpe ns e s . ” I d. In O ct ob er20 03 , P arrot tob t ai ned a se t t l em entthrou gh her a t t orney f or a t o t al o f $ 5 2 5 , 0 0 0 . P R 1 -6 , E x h . at3 . O f th e p o rt i o n p ai d b y h er u n i n su red m o t o ri st5

p o lic y , $ 1 7 5 ,0 0 0 w e n t to h e ra tto r n e y , $ 1 2 5 ,0 0 0 w a s p la c e d in a s tru c tu r e d a n n u ity to h e rb e n e f

it, a n d th e r e m a in d e r , a p p r o x im a te ly $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , w a s p a id d ir e c tly to P a r r o tt a n d d e p o s ite d in to a jo in t c h e c k in g a c c o u n t th a t s h e h e ld w ith h e rh u s b a n d . Id. O f the $2 5, 00 0 p ai d b y the t ort fe as or’ s i nsurer , som e w entt o cov erm edi ca l e xpe ns e s , s om e t o c ove ra t t or ne y ’ s f e e s a nd c os t s , a nd the r e m a i ni ng $2, 374. 64 w e n t in to th e P a r r o tts ’ a c c o u n t. I d . A f t e rdi s c ove r i ng tha tP a r r ot tha d r e c e i ve d thi s s e t t l e m e nt , P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup a t t e m pt e d t o c ol l e c tunde rthe pol i c y ’ s r e i m bur s e m e ntpr ovi s i on and rei nforci ng re i m bu rs em entagre em ent . W hen t hey w er e unabl e t o d o so, they f i l e d thi s s ui ta l ong w i th a m ot i on f ora t e m por a r y r e s tr a i ni ng or de ra nd pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on t o pr ot e c tthe s e t t l e m e ntpr oc e e ds . P opow s ki a nd the C o m m erce G ro u p al so fi l ed a m o t i o n t o h av e P arro t t ’ s h u sb an d j o i n ed as a p artydefe nd antdu e t o h i s i nt er es ti n t he bank ac coun ti n w hi ch the re covery fund s had been depo si t ed. In re spon se , P arrot tfi l ed m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss , fi rs tal l egi ng fa i l ure to s ta te a c la im , th e n a lle g in g la c k o f s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . F a c e d w ith a s p lit am on g t he ci rc ui t s r egar di ng the sc op e of e qu i t abl e r el i ef un der E R IS A , the di stri ct co u rt , fo l l o w i n g th e l ead o f th e S i x th an d N i n th C i rcu i t s i n i n t erp ret i n g G reat -W est L i fe & A nn ui ty I nsurance Co . v. K nu dson , 53 4 U . S . 20 4, 12 2 S . C t . 70 8 (20 02 ), c onc l ude d tha ti tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on ove ra ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m s be c a us e P opow s ki a ndThe re cord be forethe district court doe s not appea r to havecontained a

copy of the 2 Mohawk Plan. The district c ourt relied upon therec itation in the complaint for the re levant plan languag e. See B R1-24 at 6. 6 the C om m er ce G roup ac tual l y s ou gh tl egal ra ther than equ i t abl e r es t i tut i on i n t hat they bas ed thei r c l ai m on the breac h o f acont ra ctob l i gat i on t o rei m bu rs e the pl an r a the rtha n on a pr ope r ty r i ghti n a “ s pe c i f i c a l l y i de nt i f

i a bl e f und. ” P R 1- 24 a t11- 1 2 . T h e c o u r t th e r e f

o r e g r a n te d th e m o tio n to d is m is s , a n d , a c c o r d in g ly , d e n ie d a ll o th e rr e q u e s te d r e lie f

. B . B C B S v . C a r illo In June 20 02 , Josue C ar i l l o and V i ce nt e C ar i l l o w er e i nv ol ved i n an a c c i de nt . T he M oha w k P l a n a l l e ge dl y pa i d m e di c a l be ne f i t s of $122, 393. 64 on b e h a l f o f J o s u e a n d o f

$ 3 , 9 7 1 . 0 9 o n b e h a l f

o f Vi c e n t e . B R 1 - 1 a t2 . T h e Mo h a wk P l an cont ai ns a s ub rogat i on and rei m bu rs em entprov i si on w hi ch, i nt eral i a, p ro v i d es: I f , how e ve r , the C ove r e d P e r s on r e c e i ve s a s e t t l e m e nt , j udgm e nt , or ot her pay m entre l at i ng t o t he ac ci dent al i nj ury or i l l ness fr om anot her pe r s on, f i r m , c orpor a t i on, or ga ni z a t i on orbus i ne s s e nt i ty pa i d by , or on be ha l f of , the pe r s on ore nt i ty w ho a l l e ge dl y c a us e d the i nj ur y or illn e s s , th e C o v e r e d P e r s o n a g r e e s to r e im b u r s e th e P la n in f u ll, a n d in f i r s tpr i or i ty , f

ora ny m e di c a l e xpe ns e s pa i d by the P l a n r e l a t i ng t o the i n j u ry o r i l l n ess. B C B S L e t t e rB r . , E xh. B ; B R 1- 1 a t3. 2Th ere c ord o n a pp e a l do e s n ot inc ludea

c op y of theCari llo s’ motion

to dism iss . 3 7 B C B S h a s a lle g e d th a t th e C a r illo s r e c e iv e d a s e ttle m e n t o f $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 in c onne c t i on w i th the J une 2002 a c c i de nta nd tha tthe y ha ve r e f us e d t o r e i m bur s e the M oh aw k P l an for the m edi ca l expenses i tpai d o n t hei r behal f. B R 1-1 at4. In F e brua r y 2005, B C B S br oughts ui tpur s ua ntt o § 1132( a ) ( 3) , s e e ki ng e nf or c e m e nt of the subrog at i on and rei m bu rs em entprov i si on throu gh “ equi t abl e r el i ef , i nc l udi ng butnotl i m i t e d t o, r e s t i tut i on, i m pos i t i on of a c ons truc t i ve trus t , a nd e qui t a bl e l i e n. ” B R 1- 1 a t5. B C B S a l s o s oughta t e m por a r y r e s tr a i ni ng or de ra nd pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on pr e ve nt i ng the C a r i l l os f r om di s s i pa t i ng the s e t t l e m e nt f unds . T he c our tgr a nt e d a t e m por a r y r e s tr a i ni ng or de rbutde f e r r e d rul i ng on the pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on pe ndi ng f ur the rbr i e f

i ng by the pa r t i e s . P r i ort o a ny rul i ng, the C ar i l l os fi l ed a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss as se rt i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked ju r is d ic tio n b e c a u s e B C B S ’s a lle g a tio n s “f a il[ e d ] to s ta te a c la im f o re q u ita b le r e l i e f unde r29 U . S . C . A . § 1132( a ) ( 3) . ” B R 1- 24 a t8. B C B S r e s ponde d w i th a 3 m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he courtaddres se d al l three m ot i on s i n o ne order. A l so adop t i ng the re as on i ng of the S i xt h and N i nt h C i rc ui t s, the court concl ud ed thatB C B S ’ s c l ai m “ re gardl es s of w hether i ti s s tyl ed as a c l ai m for a c o n s tru c tiv e tru s t, f

o re q u ita b le r e s titu tio n , o rf o ra n e q u ita b le lie n , s im p ly s e e k s to enforce a provi si on of a pl an do cum entthatw ou l d requi re D ef endant s t o p ayUnder this int erpretation, a f

iduciary ’s claim could procee d under § 1132( a)( 3) as long 4 as it sought to re cover

funds that (1) w ere“spec ifically identifiable,”(2) “belong [ed] in good conscience to the Plan,”and (3) were “w ithin the possession and control of the de fenda nt bene fi c iary .”B omb ardie r A e ro sp a c eEm plo ye eWel fa

reB e ne fi ts Pl an v . F e rre r, Poiro t & Wansbrough, 354 F.3d 348, 356 ( 5th Cir. 2003). The re asoningunderlying thedecisions in both Qualchoiceand Westaff was re jected by 5 the Supreme Court. Sereboff, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. at 1873 n.1. 8 m o n e y .” I d . a t 1 7 - 1 8 . I t f u r th e rc o n c lu d e d th a t “[ s ]u c h a c la im is n o t e q u ita b le in na tur e , a nd i s not‘ a ppr opr i a t e e qui t a bl e r e l i e f’ f orpurpos e s of

§ 1132( a ) ( 3) . ” I d. a t18. A l t e r na t i ve l y , the c our ts t a t e d tha t , e ve n unde rthe a l t e r na t i ve i nt e rpr e t a t i on o f K n u d s o n a d o p te d b y a m a jo r ity o f c ir c u its a t th e tim e , b e c a u s e B C B S f a ile d to 4

“ s e e k r e c ove r y of

s pe c i f i e d, i de nt i f

i a bl e f unds , buti ns t e a d [ s ought ] r e c ove r y of f u n d s th a t h a v e b e e n c o m in g le d in to v a r io u s c h e c k in g a c c o u n ts a n d s p e n t, in p a r t, t o pur c ha s e a truc k . . . r e l i e f unde r§ 1132( a ) ( 3) [ w a s ] una va i l a bl e . ” I d. a t18- 19. A c c or di ngl y , the c our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on t o di s m i s s . O n the ba s i s of the r e a s oni ng unde r l y i ng the di s m i s s a l , the c our ta l s o de ni e d the m ot i ons f or p r e lim in a r y in

ju n c tio n a n d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. C . A p p e a ls O n a ppe a l , P opow s ki , the C om m e r c e G r oup, a nd B C B S now a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t s , i n r e l y i ng upon the r e a s oni ng of the S i xth C i r c ui ti n Q ua l c hoi c e v. R o wl a n d , 3 6 7 F . 3 d 6 3 8 ( 6 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) a n d th e Ni n th C i r c u i ti n We s t a f f ( US A) I nc . v. A r c e , 298 F . 3d 1164 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , i m pr ope r l y i nt e rpr e t e d K nuds on. 59

A ft erthe di stri ctcourtdeci si on s a nd the appel l at e bri ef i ng i n t he ca se s now before us ha d oc c ur r e d, the S upr e m e C our ti s s ue d i t s opi ni on i n S e r e bof f , a ddr e s s i ng the c i r c ui ts pl i ta s t o the s c ope of e qui t a bl e r e l i e f

a va i l a bl e unde rE R I S A . W e now r e vi e w the s e c a s e s i n l i ghtof tha tde c i s i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S ubj e c tM a t t e rJ ur i s di c t i on W e r evi ew bo th a di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of i t s s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on a nd i t s gr a ntof a m ot i on t o di s m i s s de novo. S w e a tP e a M a r i ne , L t d. v. A P J M a r i ne , I nc . , 411 F . 3d 1242, 1247 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( j ur i s di c t i on) ; D oe v. M oor e , 410 F . 3d 1337, 1342 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 624 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s ) . A p l a n f i d u c i a r y ma y b r i n g a c i v i l a c t i o n u n d e rERI SA

“ (A ) t o enj oi n any ac tor prac t i ce w hi ch vi ol at es any provi si on of thi s s ub chapt er o rth e te r m s o f

th e p la n , o r( B ) to o b ta in o th e ra p p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e lie f ( i) to r e dr e s s s uc h vi ol a t i ons or( i i ) t o e nf or c e a ny pr ovi s i ons of

thi s s ubc ha pt e rorthe t e r m s of the pl a n. ” 29 U . S . C . § 1132( a ) ( 3) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s c ons true d § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) “to a u th o r iz e o n ly ‘th o s e c a te g o r ie s o f r e lie f th a t w e r e ty p ic a lly a va i l a bl e i n e qui ty . ’ ” S e r e bof f , __ U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1873 ( c i t i ng M e r t e ns v. H ew i t tA ss ocs. , 50 8 U . S . 24 8, 25 6-57 , 11 3 S . C t . 20 63 , 20 69 (199 3). W hether a r e m e dy i s “ l e ga l ore qui t a bl e de pe nds on the ba s i s f or[ the pl a i nt i f

f’ s ] c l a i m a nd the10

n a tu r e o f th e u n d e r ly in g r e m e d ie s s o u g h t.” K n u d s o n , 5 3 4 U .S . a t 2 1 3 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t714 ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . “ [ N ] ota l l r e l i e f f a l l i ng unde rthe rubr i c of r e s titu tio n is a v a ila b le in e q u ity .” I d . a t 2 1 2 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 7 1 4 . F o rin s ta n c e , a c l a i m tha t , i n e s s e nc e , s e e ks “ nothi ng othe rtha n c om pe ns a t or y da m a ge s ” – f or i nst ance , on e thatse eks s i m pl y “ t o i m po se pers on al l i abi l i ty . . . for acont ra ctual o b lig a tio n to p a y m o n e y ” is n o t e q u ita b le f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . S e r e bof f , __ U . S . a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1873, 1874 ( f i r s tc i t a t i on om i t t e d) ( quot i ng K nuds on, 534 U . S . a t210, 122 S . C t . a t712- 13) . R e j e c t i ng the a ppr oa c h t a ke n by th e S i x th an d N i n th C i rcu i t s, th e S u p rem e C o u rtfu rth er cl ari fi ed th at , as l o n g as a pl a i nt i f f i s a bl e t o e s t a bl i s h tha t“ the ba s i s f ori t s c l a i m i s e qui t a bl e , ” br i ngi ng the c la im a s a n a c tio n f

o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t w ill n o t d is q u a lif y it u n d e r§ 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . I d. a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1874. T he C our tdr e w a pa r a l l e l t o the e a r l y tw e nt i e th- c e ntur y c a s e of B a r ne s v. A l exander, 23 2 U . S . 11 7, 34 S . C t . 27 6 (19 14 ), i n w hi ch on e a t t orney prom i se d tw o o thers w ho as si st ed hi m w i th a ca se “ on e- thi rd of the cont i ng entfe e. ” S e r e bof f , __ U . S . a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1875 ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . T he C our te xpl a i ne d: I n uphol di ng [ the a s s i s t i ng a t t or ne y s ’ ] e qui t a bl e c l a i m t o thi s por t i on o f th e f e e , J u s tic e H o lm e s r e c ite d th e f a m ilia rru le o f

e q u ity th a t a c o n tr a c t to c o n v e y a s p e c if ic o b je c t e v e n b e f

o r e it is a c q u ir e d w ill m a k e th e c o n tr a c t o ra tru s t e e a s s o o n a s h e g e t s a t i t l e t o th e th i n g . OnAltho ugh th eSup remeCourt on ly int e rm itt e ntly

qu ote d th epla

n la nguag eat is su ein 6 Serebof f, it characterized the provision as re quiring“a benefic iary who ‘re ceive s benef

its’ under thepla n f or su c h in jurie s to ‘re imb ur se[thepla n]’ fo r t ho sebene fi ts f

ro m ‘ [a]llre c ov e ri e s f

ro m a third pa rt y (whe ther b y

laws uit , s e ttl e ment, or

oth e rw ise ). ’”Se rebo ff

, _ __ U. S. at __

_, 12 6 S. Ct. at 1872 (e mphasis added) . The fund at issue in Knudson was not in the hands of the de fenda nt but had been placed 7 in a trust cre ated under California la w. Knudson, 534 U.S. at 208, 122 S. Ct. at 711.

11 th e b asi s o f th i s ru l e, h e co n cl u d ed th at[th e l ead at t o rn ey’ s] un dert aki ng cr ea t ed a l i en up on the po rt i on of the m on et ary r ec ov ery d u e [th e l ead at t o rn ey] fro m th e cl i en t , w h i ch [th e assi st i n g at t o rn eys] c oul d f ol l ow i nt o the ha nds of

[ the l e a d a t t or ne y ] , a s s oon a s the f und w a s i de nt i f

i e d. I d. ( c i t a t i ons , quot a t i ons , a nd pr e vi ous a l t e r a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he C our tthe n f ound tha tthe r e i m bur s e m e ntpr ovi s i on i n the S e r e bof f s ’ pl a n c r e a t e d a s i m i l a rl i e n by agre em enti n t hati t“ spec i fi ca l l y i dent i fi ed a part i cul arfund , di st i nctfr om [the pl an be ne f i c i a r i e s ’ ] ge ne r a l a s s e t s . . . a nd a pa r t i c ul a rs ha r e of tha tf und t o w hi c h [ the pl an] w as ent i t l ed. ” Id. A dd re ss i ng the source of the ci rc ui tspl i t , the C ou rt 6 e xpl a i ne d tha t , i n K nuds on, i tha d “ notr e j e c t [ e d] [ the f

i duc i a r y ’ s ] s ui toutof

ha nd be c a us e i ta l l e ge d a br e a c h of c ontr a c ta nd s oughtm one y , butbe c a us e [ the fi du ci ary] di d n otse ek t o rec ov era par t i cul arfund fr om the defendant . ” Id. at 7 1 8 7 4 . In o th er w o rd s, a cl ai m th at“ al l eg e[s] b reach o f co n tractan d [seek s] m one y ” but“ [ s e e ks ] r e c ove r y thr ough a c ons truc t i ve trus tore qui t a bl e l i e n on a s p e c if ic a lly id e n tif

ie d f u n d ” in th e d e f

e n d a n t’s p o s s e s s io n a n d c o n tr o l is e q u ita b le r e l i e f f orpurpos e s of

§ 1132( a ) ( 3) . I d.12

1. U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors P l an T he subrog at i on and rei m bu rs em entprov i si on i n t he U ni t ed D i stri bu t ors P l a n c l a i m s a l i e n “ on a ny a m ountr e c ove r e d by the C ove r e d P e r s on w he the rornot desi gn at ed as paym entfor m edi ca l expenses . ” P R 1-1, E xh . G at63 . Itfurther c l a r i f i e s tha t“ [ t ] he C ove r e d P e r s on . . . m us tr e pa y t o the P l a n the be ne f i t s pa i d on hi s orhe rbe ha l f

outof the r e c ove r y m a de f

r om the thi r d pa r ty ori ns ur e r . ” I d. (e m p h as is ad d ed ). T h u s, lan g u ag e e ss en ti ally id en ti ca l t o th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s char ac t er i za t i on of the pl an l angu age i n S er eboff, spec i fi es bo th t he fund (r ec ov ery f r om the thi r d pa r ty ori ns ur e r ) outof w hi c h r e i m bur s e m e nti s due t o the pl a n a nd th e p o r tio n d u e th e p la n ( b e n e f its p a id b y th e p la n o n b e h a lf o f th e d e f e n d a n t) . U n lik e in K n u d s o n , a s ig n if ic a n t p o r tio n o f

th e f u n d s s p e c if

ie d w e n t d ir e c tly in to th e P a r r o tts ’ b a n k a c c o u n t a n d , th e r e b y , w a s in th e irp o s s e s s io n f o rp u rp o s e s o f

th is c a s e . T hus , a tthe t i m e the y f i l e d the i rs ui t , P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup s ought“ nott o i m pos e pe r s ona l l i a bi l i ty on [ P a r r ot t ] , butt o r e s t or e t o the pl a i nt i f f[ s ] pa r t i c ul a rf

unds orpr ope r ty i n [ P a r r ot t ’ s ] pos s e s s i on. ” S e e K nuds on, 534 U . S . a t214, 122 S . C t . a t714- 15. A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tP opow s ki and t he C om m er ce G roup have st at ed a c l ai m for “ approp ri at e e qu i t abl e r el i ef ” unde r§ 1132( a ) ( 3) a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n di s m i s s i ng the s ui tf orl a c k of s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on.Our c onclusion is sim ilar to that of the district cour t’s alternative holding ba sed upon 8 BCB S’s failure to identify a spec ific fund, e x cept that wedo not depend upon the c ominglingor dis sip atio n o f f

un ds . In e xplainingthedis tin c tio n, weob serv ethat th eSup remeCourt in Serebof f also addressed issues of tracingand cla rified that the stric t tracingrequirements that apply to equitable liens “sought as a matter of re stitut ion” do not apply to equitable liens by agreement. Serebof

f, __ U.S. at___, 126 S. Ct. at 1875. In other words, “the fund over which [an equitable lien by

agreement] i s asserte d need not bein exi stencewhen the c ontrac t containingthe lien provision is ex ecute d.” I d. at 1876. Neither , in the caseof a lien by agreement is it necessar

y for a plaintiff to trac e property or an a sset rightfully

belong ing to that 13 2. M oh aw k P l an T he s ubr oga t i on a nd r e i m bur s e m e ntpr ovi s i on i n the M oha w k P l a n, unl i ke th a t o f th e U n ite d D is tr ib u to r s P la n , c la im s a r ig h t to r e im b u r s e m e n t “in f u ll, a n d in f i r s tpr i or i ty , f

ora ny m e di c a l e xpe ns e s pa i d by the P l a n r e l a t i ng t o the i nj ur y or i l l ness , ” butdo es no tspec i fy thatthatre i m bu rs em entbe m ade outof any par t i cul ar f u n d , a s d i s t i n c tf

r o m th e b e n e f

i c i a r y ’ s g e n e r a l a s s e t s . BCBS Le t t e rBr . , Ex h . B; B R 1- 1 a t3. I ns t e a d, i tm a ke s r e c e i ptof “ a s e t t l e m e nt , j udgm e nt , orothe rpa y m e nt r e l a t i ng t o the a c c i de nt a l i nj ur y ori l l ne s s ” a tr i gge rf orthe ge ne r a l r e i m bur s e m e nt o b lig a tio n . I d . F u r th e r , in r e q u ir in g r e im b u r s e m e n t “in f u ll” , it f a ils to lim it r e c o v e r y to a s p e c if

ic p o r tio n o f

a p a r tic u la rf

u n d . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t, b e c a u s e th e M o h a w k p la n f a ils to s p e c if

y th a t r e c o v e r y c o m e f

r o m a n y id e n tif

ia b le f und ort o l i m i ttha tr e c ove r y t o a ny por t i on the r e of , i tf a i l s t o m e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s out l i ne d i n S e r e bof f f orthe a s s e r t i on of

a n e qui t a bl e l i e n f

orthe purpos e s of

29 U . S . C . § 1132( a ) ( 3) . F orthi s r e a s on, w e c onc l ude tha ti tw a s not erro r t o d i sm i ss B C B S ’ s cl ai m s. 8plaintiff “into its products or substitutes” in the defendant’s hands. Id. at 1875. Thus, the fact

that the third-par

ty rec overy trig g eringthe Mohawk Plan’s reimbursement provision was c oming le d, e ven a

bs e nt t rac ing , w ould n ot h avedis qu a lif ie d a n e quita blelien h a d th at e quita

ble lien been by

agreement (i.e. had the Mohawk Plan spec ified that re imbursement come f rom the third-par ty rec overy funds). Ac cording ly , although it was alluded to at oral argument, we do not re a c h a ny iss ueof tra c ingin e ith e r o f t

he sec a se s. 14 B . O ther R equest ed R el i ef 1 . P o p o w sk i an d C o m m erce G ro u p ’ s M o t i o n s fo r T R O , P rel i m i n ary I nj unc t i on, a nd the A ddi t i on of P a r r ot ta s P a r ty D e f

e nda nt T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup’ s m ot i ons fo r a T R O an d p rel i m i n ary i n j u n ct i o n an d fo r th e ad d i t i o n o f P arro t t ’ s h u sb an d as a party def endantw as base d u po n t he court ’ s per ce pt i on thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe c l a i m s i n thi s c a s e . B e c a us e w e ha ve de t e r m i ne d tha tthe c our tdoe s , i n f

a c t , ha ve s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on, the unde r l y i ng r a t i ona l e f orthe deni al no l on ger e xi st s, and i tca nn otst and. W e w i l l no tre vi ew the m er i t s w hen the di s tr i c tc our tha s noty e tha d the oppor tuni ty t o do s o. S e e , e . g. , C a l l a ha n v. C a m p b e l l , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 8 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a te th e d e n ia l o f

th e s e m o tio n s a n d le a v e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o n s id e rth e m e r its of e a c h on r e m a nd.

2. B C B S ’ s M ot i ons f

orP r e l i m i na r y I nj unc t i on a nd S um m a r y J udgm e nt B ec ause B C B S fa i l ed t o st at e acl ai m for app ropri at e e qu i t abl e r el i ef un der § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , it c a n n o t, a s a m a tte ro f la w , b e e n title d to ju d g m e n t in its f a v o r .15

T here fore , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y deni ed B C B S ’ s m ot i on s f or prel i m i nary in ju n c tio n a n d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. I I I . CONCL US I ON P op ow ski and t he C om m er ce G roup appeal the di sm i ss al by the di stri ct c our tof the i rc l a i m unde r§ 1132( a ) ( 3) s e e ki ng r e i m bur s e m e ntoutof the thi r dpa r ty r e c ove r y m a de by P a r r ot tf orbe ne f i t s pa i d by the U ni t e d D i s tr i but or s P l a n on he rbe ha l f

. B e c a us e , a s r e qui r e d by S e r e bof f , P opow s ki a nd the C om m e r c e G r oup s e e k r e l i e f

f r om a n i de nt i f

i a bl e f und a nd ha ve s pe c i f

i e d the por t i on of

tha tf und ove rw hi c h the y a s s e r ta c l a i m , w e f i nd tha tthe y ha ve s t a t e d a c l a i m f or a p p r o p r i a t e e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f u n d e rth i s p r o v i s i o n o f E R I S A. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we R EVER SE th e d is m is s a l, VA C A TE th e d e n i a l o f th e m o t i o n s f

o rT R O, pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on, a nd the a ddi t i on of P a r r ot ta s pa r ty - de f

e nda nt , a nd RE MAND c a s e num be r05- 10235 f orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. B C B S appeal s the di sm i ss al by the di stri ctcourtof i t s c l ai m un der § 1132( a ) ( 3) s e e ki ng r e i m bur s e m e ntf orm e di c a l e xpe ns e s pa i d on be ha l f of the C ari l l o s b y th e M o h aw k P l an . B ecau se th e M o h aw k P l an m ak es th e b en efi ci ari es’ r e c ove r y f

r om a thi r d pa r ty onl y a tr i gge rf orr e i m bur s e m e nta nd s e t s no l i m i tupon th e r e im b u r s e m e n t th e r e b y in itia te d , w e f in d th a t B C B S h a s f

a ile d to s ta te a c la im16

f o ra p p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e lie f a c c o r d in g to th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o u tlin e d in S e r e b o f f . A cc ordi ng l y w e AF F I RM a s t o c a s e num be r05- 13344. F i nal l y, beca use w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al as t o cas e num ber 05 -133 44 , w e DE NY B C B S ’ s m ot i on , al so curr ent l y pendi ng before us, t o res t ore a t em p o rary restrai n i n g o rd er ag ai n stth e C ari l l o s’ d i ssi p at i o n o f fu n d s.