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 Third C irc uit 8-18-2005 

# Minni s v . B aldwin B ro s Inc P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4103

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Minni s v . B aldwin B ros Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 679. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/679NOT 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 O . 04- 4103

________________ R O B E R T C . M IN N IS , S R ., A ppel l ant

v. BALDW I N BROS . I NC.

___________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. Ci v . No. 0 4 - c v - 0 0 1 9 4 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 14, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, M CK EE AN D A LDI SERT, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t18, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM T he appe l l ant , R obertC . M i nni s , Sr . , appea l s pr o s e fr om the or derof the U ni t ed S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rtf

o r t h e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia d is m is s in g h is c o m p la in t. W e wi l l a f

f i rm.2

A s w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e nee d onl yr evi ew the pert i nentfac t s and pr ocedur al h ist o ryo f th e u n d erly ing m att er. O n Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , M inn is fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s o f

E rie C o u n tyse e k in g to re c o v e r “ p e n sio n ” b e n e f its f ro m B a ld w in B ro th e rs, In c . (“B a ld w in B ro th e rs” ). A c c o rd in g to M in n is’ c o m p lain t, be f o re h e d ied in A ugus t1995, J . R obertB al dw i n, the form erpr es i dentof B al dw i n B r other s , pr om i s ed M in n is a $ 4 0 0 .0 0 p e r m o n th p e n sio n . M in n is a lleg e d in h is c o m p lain t th a t th e m o n th ly p e n s io n p a ym e n ts w e re to b e g in o n S e p te m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5 , a n d c o n tin u e u n til h is d e a th . A c c o rd in g to M in n is , B a ld w in B ro th e rs h a s re f u s e d to p a yth e b e n e f

its o w e d to h im . M in n is s o u g h t d a m a g e s in th e a m o u n t o f f iv e m illio n d o lla rs . O n J ul y9, 2004, B al dw i n B r other s r emoved t he ca s e t o the D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e sta te la w b re a c h o f c o n tra c t cla im a ss e rte d in M in n is’ c o m p lain t w a s a c tu a llya c laim f o r th e d e n ial o f

b e n e f its d u e to h im underthe t erm s of an e m pl oy ee be nefi t s pl an and, as s uch, w as pr eempt ed bythe E m p lo y e e R e tir e m e n t I n c o m e S e c u ri ty A c t o f 1 9 7 4 (“ E R IS A ” ). S e e 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a)(1)(B ). S h o rt lythere af ter, M inn is fil ed a m o ti o n to rem an d . B aldw in B roth ers then fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(6 ), a r g u i n g th a tM i n n i s ’ E RI S A c l a i m w a s b a rr e d b yth e a p p l i c a b l e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . On S e p t e mb e r2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g o n th e p e n d i n g mo t i o n s . At the conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed M i nni s ’ m ot i on t o r emand and gr ant ed B al dw i n B r other s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.3

O u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) is plenary . S ee G al l o v . C i tyof P hil adelphi a, 16 1 F . 3d 21 7, 22 1 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). “W e m ust det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the pl eadi ngs , the pl ai nt i ff[ ] m aybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, and w e mustacc eptas true the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n ther efr om . ” N ami v. Fauver , 82 F. 3d 63, 65 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). M o re o v e r, as M in n is f iled h is c o m p lain t p ro se , w e m u st lib e ra lly cons true hi s pl eadi ngs and appl ythe appl i cabl e l aw , i rr es pect i ve of w hetherhe has m en ti o n ed itb yn am e. S ee D luh o s v . S tr asb erg , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). E R IS A a p p lie s to “ a n ye m p lo y e e b e n e f it p la n if it is e s ta b lis h e d o r m a in ta in e d . . . byanyempl oy erengage d i n comm er ce. ” 29 U . S. C . § 1002( 2) ( A ) . E R I SA i t s el f does not provide a def

i nit i on of the t erm “plan. ” H ow ever, the “term i s cl earl yno ti ntended as a re q u ir e m e n t o f

a w ri tin g .” D e ib le r v . L o c a l U n io n 2 3 , 9 7 3 F .2 d 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). In ste a d , “th e c ru c ial f

a c to r in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a ‘p lan ’ h a s b e e n e sta b lish e d is w hetherthe empl oy erhas expr es s ed an i nt ent i on t o pr ovi de bene fi t s on a r egul arand lo n g -te rm b a sis .” Id . (q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). In sh o rt, a p lan u n d e r E R IS A “ is es t abl i s hed i f fr om the s urr oundi ng ci r cumst ance s a r eas onabl e per s on can a s cert ai n the i nt ended be nefi t s , a cl as s of bene fi ci ar i es , the s our ce of fi nanci ng, and pr ocedur es for r ece i vi ng benef

i t s . ” D onovan v. D i l l i ngham, 688 F. 2d 1367, 1373 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ; s ee al so H eng l ei n v . Inform al P l an fo r Pl ann ed S hu t do w n B enef i t s for Salar i ed E m ploy ees, 974 F. 2d 391, 399 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ; D ei bl er , 973 F. 2d at209 ( quot i ng D onovan as the4

“pr evai l i ng s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hethera ‘ pl an’ w i thi n the meani ng of ER I SA has been e s t abl i s hed”) . “W hethera pl an exi s t s w i thi n the meani ng of ER I SA i s ‘ a ques t i on of fac t , t o be ans w er ed i n l i ghtof al l the s urr oundi ng fac t s and ci r cumst ance s and fr om the poi ntof vi ew of a r eas onabl e per s on. ’ ” D ei bl er , 973 F. 2d at209 ( quot i ng W i ckman v. N o rth w e ste rn N a tio n a l In s. C o ., 9 0 8 F .2 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 3 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 0 )). T h e re f o re , w e w ill re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g o f a n E R IS A p lan o n lyif

th a t f in d in g is c lea rly err oneous . See D ei bl er , 973 F. 2d at210. H er e, the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the pl an ar e s uch thata r eas onabl e per s on c o u ld a sc e rta in th e in ten d e d b e n e f its a n d b e n e f

icia ry . T h e p lan a s a lleg e d b yM in n is unambi guous l ypr ovi ded hi m $400. 00 perm onth forthe r emai nderof hi s l i fe. See W i l l i ams v. W r i ght , 927 F. 2d 1540, 1545 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( “[W ] e do noti nt erpr et D onovan’ s us e of the w or d ‘ cl as s ’ as an abs ol ut e r equi r ementof m or e than one b e n e f icia ryo r th a t a p lan tailo re d to th e n e e d s o f a sin g le e m p lo y e e c a n n o t b e w ith in E R I SA . ”) . M or eover , the s our ce of fundi ng can be r eas onabl yas cert ai ned as the gene r al as s et s of B al dw i n B r other s . See i d. at1544 ( concl udi ng that“the paym entof bene fi t s out o f a n em p loy er’s g en era l assets d o es n o t aff ec t th e thre sh o ld q u esti o n o f E R IS A ’s co v era g e” ). F inally , the p roc ed u re a ll eg ed b yM inn is fo r rece iving b en ef it s is clear: M in n is w a s to re c e iv e a m o n th lyp a ym e n t o f $ 4 0 0 .0 0 f

ro m B a ld w in B ro th e rs u n til h is death. See D ei bl er , 973 F. 2d at210 ( concl udi ng thateven w hen “the s our ce of fi nanci ng and pr ocedur e forr ece i vi ng benef i t s ar e neve rm ade e xpl i ci t , [] i ti s enough i f thes e ca nM o re o v e r, b e c a u se M in n is a lleg e d a n E R IS A p lan in h is c o m p lain t, an ysta te 1 l aw cl ai m s cont ai ned ther ei n w er e pr eempt ed byE R I SA . See 29 U . S. C . § 1144( a) (se c tio n 5 1 4 (a ), th e e x p re ss p re e m p tio n p ro v isio n o f E R IS A , p ro v id e s th a t E R IS A “ sh a ll s uper cede anyand al l St at e l aw s i ns ofaras theym aynow orher eaf t err el at e t o any e mpl oy e e be ne fi tpl a n” c ov e r e d b ythe s t a tut e ) ; s e e a l s o Sh a w v. D e l t a A i r l i ne s , 46 3 U. S. 85, 96- 96 ( 1983) ( “A l aw ‘ r el at es t o’ an empl oy ee be nefi tpl an, i n the norm al s ens e of the p h r a s e , i f

i th a s a c o n n e c t i o n w i th o rr e f e r e n c e t o s u c h a p l a n . ” ). 5 b e a s c e r t a i n e d f

r o m th e ‘ s u rr o u n d i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s ’ ” ) . Un d e rth e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM i nni s ’ compl ai ntal l eged a“pl an” w ith in the m ea n ing o f E R IS A w as n o t cl ea rl yerro n eo u s. A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt di d noti m pr oper l yexer ci s e fe der al j ur i s di ct i on overM i nni s ’ act i on. 1 L i kew i s e, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatM i nni s ’ E R I SA cl ai m i s barr ed by th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s. C laim s b ro u g h t u n d e r E R IS A a re su b jec t to th e re lev a n t sta te s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons governi ng contr actact i ons . See Sy ed v. H er cul es I nc. , 214 F. 3d 1 5 5 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); see also H en g lei n v . C o ltInd u s. , 2 6 0 F . 3 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2001) ( not i ng thatE R I SA does notcont ai n i t s ow n s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons and, ther efor e, court s s houl d l ook t o the mostanal ogous s t at e pr ovi s i ons ) . I n Penns y l vani a, the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s f

o r c o n tr a c t a c tio n s is f

o u r ye a rs . S e e 4 2 P a . C .S .A . § 5 5 2 5 (8 ). G e n e ra lly, a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run underPenns y l vani a l aw w hen a pl ai nt i ff’ s caus e of a c tio n a ri s e s o r a c c ru e s . S e e L e e d o m v . S p a n o , 6 4 7 A .2 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 6 (P a . S u p e r. 1 9 9 4 ). H ere , M inn is’ ca u se o f a cti o n ac cru ed o n S ep tem b er 1 , 1 9 9 5 , w h en B aldw in B roth ers f a iled to m a k e its f

irst m o n th lyp a ym e n t u n d e r th e ter m s o f th e p lan . B e c a u se M in n is d id notfi l e hi s compl ai ntunt i l J une 21, 2004, w el l aft erthe foury ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons6

e x p ire d , the a c tio n is c lea rlytim e -b a rre d . T h e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in di s m i s s i ng M i nni s ’ compl ai ntas unt i m el y . See O s hi verv. L evi n, Fi s hbei n, Sedr an & B erm an, 38 F. 3d 1380, 1384 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( not i ng thata compl ai ntm aybe dis m i ssed pursuant t o R ule 12(b)( 6) on st atute of l i m i t at i on s ground s i f the u nti m el i ness o f th e c o m p lai n t i s ap p are n t on it s fa ce ). A c c o rd in g ly , fo r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth h e re in a n d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g M in n is’ c o m p lain t an d d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r emand.