2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-3-2005 

# Arrow D ri lling C o v

. C arp e nt e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4200

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Arr ow Dr i ll in g C o v

. C arpe nt e r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1483. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/14831 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os : 03- 4200/ 03- 4376/ 04- 1886/ 04- 2038 AR RO W DRI L L I NG C O. , I NC . , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND O N B E HAL F OF AR RO W D R IL L IN G , C O ., IN C . A D V A N T A G E 4 1 9 P L A N ; A R R O W D R IL L IN G C O ., I NC . BE NI S T AR 4 1 9 ADVAN T AGE P L AN P AR T I CI P ANT S , NE S T OR GAR Z A, J R. , DA VI D G AR ZA A ND LUI S ROBER TO G AR ZA; PALM VA LLEY H EALTH CA RE, I NC . , I ND I VI DU ALLY AN D O N B EHA LF OF P ALM VA LLEY H EALTH CARE, I NC. BENI S TAR 4 1 9 P LAN; P ALM VALLE Y HEALT H CARE, I NC. 4 1 9 PLAN PARTI CI PAN TS, ON BEH ALF O F S I M I LAR LY SI TUA TED

I N D I V I D U A LS A N D EM PLO Y ER S, A ppel l ant s i n 03- 4200 v. D A N IE L C A R P E N T E R ; B E N IS T A R 4 1 9 P L A N S E R V IC E S , IN C .; B E N I ST A R 419 A M I N SE R V I C E S, I N C . A K A B E N I ST A R 419 AD M I NI STRATI VE SERV I CES, I NC . ; BEN I STAR EM PLOY ER

S E RV I CE S T RU S T CO RP OR AT I ON,

A ppel l ant s i n N os . 03- 4376 & 04- 2038 A r r ow D r i l l i ng C o. , I nc. , i ndi vi dual l yand on beha l f of A r r ow D r i l l i ng C o. , I nc. A dvant age 419 Pl an; A r r ow D r i l l i ng, C o. , I nc. B eni s t ar419 A dvant age Pl an Par t i ci pant s , N es t or G ar za, J r . , D avi d G ar za a nd L ui s R ober t o G ar za, A ppel l ant s i n 04- 1886 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 2: 02- C V - 09097) D istric t C o u rt: H o n . L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary19, 2005On August 29, 2003, Palm Valley Health Care, Inc. moved f or voluntary

dismiss al 1 wi tho ut p re

judic e . B y

Me morand

um a nd Order o f S eptember 2 3, 20 03 , th eCourt dis mis se d th is caseand denie d Palm Valley Health Care, Inc.’s Motion for V oluntary Dismissal W ithout Pr e judic ea s mo ot. 2

B efore: A L ITO , M cK E E and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

OP I NI ON PerC ur i am A p p ell an ts A rrow D ri ll ing C o . , Inc . an d P alm V all eyH ea lth C are , Inc . are em ploy ers w ho se em ploy ees part i ci pated i n the B enis t ar 419 A dv antage P l an an d T rust ( “B eni s t ar419 Pl an. ”) . A r r ow D r i l l i ng al l eges t hatA ppel l ees D ani el C arpent er , B eni s t ar 1 419 Pl an Servi ces , I nc. , B eni s t ar419 A dm i n. Ser vi ces , I nc. , and B eni s t arE m pl oy er Ser vi ces T rus tC orpor at i on ( col l ect i vel y , “B eni s t ar ”) ar e fi duci ar i es of the B eni s t ar419 Pl an w ho br eac hed thei rdut i es i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on 409 of the Em pl oym entR et i r ement In c o m e S e c u ri ty A c t ( “ E R IS A ” ). A r r ow D r i l l i ng now appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ect m att er jurisdicti o n , an d B en ist ar a p p ea ls th e c o u rt ’s de n ial o f it s m o ti o n fo r att o rne y ’s fees. D i s cus s i on 1 . A rrow D ri l l i ng ’s App eals O urr evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n is p le n a ry. G ould E l ectr oni cs , I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 220 F. 3d3

169, 176 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of A r r ow D r i l l i ng’ s m ot i on f o r l e a v e to a m e n d its c o m p la in t a n d th e m o tio n to re c o n s id e r f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Heyl & Pat t ers on I

nt ’ l , I nc. v. F. D . R i ch H

ous i ng of the Vi r gi n I s l ands , I nc. , 663 F. 2d 4 1 9 , 4 2 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); N or th R i verI

ns . C o. v. C

IG N A R ei ns ur ance Co. , 52 F. 3d 1194, 1 2 0 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). I nas m uch as w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , t her e i s no need t o r eci t e the fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e. A l t hough A r r ow D r i l l i ng has fi l ed s epar at e appe al s fr om th e o rig in a l S e p tem b e r 2 5 M e m o ra n d u m O rd e r a n d th e A m e n d e d F in a l O rd e r, b o th O rd e rs r a ise th e sa m e iss u e s, a n d A rro w D rilli n g h a s n o t m a d e a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n t th a t is s p e c if ic to th e A m e n d e d F in a l O rd e r. T he di s t r i ctcour thas t hought ful l yexpl ai ned i t s concl us i on t hatpl ai nt i ffs l ack s t andi ng underE R I SA and thatt he compl ai ntm us tt her efor e be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See Arr ow D r i l l i ng C o. , I nc. v. C ar

penter , 2 0 0 3 WL 23100808 ( E . D . Pa. Sept . 23, 2003) . T he courtal s o expl ai ned thatFed. R . C i v. Pr oc. 15 “does notperm i ta pl ai nt i ff t o amend a compl ai nt‘ t o s ubs t i tut e a ne w pl ai nt i ff t o cur e the l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” Id ., at *5 . Itis ev iden t from the d istri ct co u rt ’s tho u g h tfu l ana ly sis th at th e c o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in ref u sing A rrow D ri ll ing ’s r eques tt o amend i n vi ol at i on of R ul e 15, and w e w i l l t her efor e af fi r m s ubs t ant i al l yfort heT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o expl ai ned w hyaddi t i onal evi dence A r r ow D r i l l i ng s ought 2 to p rese n t w as irrel ev an t and d id n o t r eq u ir e re co n side rati o n o f it s M arc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 o rde r. 4 re a so n s s e t f

o rth b yth e d istric t co u rt. 2 2 . B enis tar ’s C r os s -Appeal In its c ro ss -a p p e a l, B e n ista r a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in deny i ng at t or ney ’ s fee s under28 U . S. C . § 1927 gi ven ( w hatB eni s t ardes cr i bes as ) A r r ow D r i l l i ng’ s bad fa i t h and vexa t i ous conduct . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatA r r ow D r i l l i ng’ s conductdi d notundul y“mul t i pl y ” the pr ocee di ngs as i s r equi r ed fors anct i ons under28 U . S. C . § 1927, and thati t s conductal s o di d notw arr ants anct i ons undert he co u rt ’s i n h ere n t po w er. A l t hough w e do nothes i t at e t o fi nd an abus e of di s cr et i on w her e i tappea r s on t he rec o rd, th e d istri ct co u rtw as in the b est p o sit ion to as sess the im p ac t of co u n sel’s s t ew ar ds hi p of thi s l i t i gat i on, and w e ca n notconcl ude thatt he courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on in h o ld in g th a t th e s te w a rd s h ip d o e s n o t w a rr a n t s a n c tio n s . A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o aw ard at t orney ’s fees.