Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50860 Su m m ar y Cal endar

AT & T, I N C. , a s Fi duc i ary o f t he SBC M e di c ala nd Gr o up Life I ns ur anc e Pl anC u st om care P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. JAK E FLORE S; M I DA N I , H I N KLE & COLE D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V
- 343 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P RA D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IAM: * D efen da n t - A pp e ll a n t s Jak e F l ores an d h i s at t orneys M i da n i , H i n kle & C o le ( “A p p ell a n ts”) ap p ea lthe distri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t t o Pl ai nt if f

- Appe l l e e AT& T, I nc . (“AT & T” ) , a s f i duc i ary o f

the SBC M e di c ala nd

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50860

T h e S u m m ar y P l an D e scri p ti o n p ro v i d e s: 1 S U BROG AT I ON /RI GH T OF REI M BURSEM E N T (T HE P L AN’ S RI GH T T O RECOVER P AY ME NT F R OM AT HI R D P A R T YI F Y OU A R E I NJ UR E D O R DI S A B L E D) : I f yo u a r e i nj ur ed or di s ab l ed as a r es ul t of negl i gent orw r ongf ula c to ro m i s s i on o f

a t hi r d pa r t y, t he P l a n w i l lpa y b e ne f i t s , bu tr e s e r ve s t he r i gh tt o r e c o ve rt ho s e p a ym e nt s f r o m t he p e r s o n who inju re d y o u o r h is or h e r in su ra n ce co m p a n y . . . T h e p la n s h a ll h a v e a lie n o n a n y a m o u n ts rec overed f

rom any ot her s ourc e t o t he ext entperm i tt e d b y a pp l i ca bl e l aw . The am oun tof m o n e y t o be su br o g ate d sh alln o t be re d u ce d by an y l e g al fe e s or co st s. 2 G r o up Life I ns ur anc e Pl an (“t he Pl an” ) . W e AF FI RM t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r ant of sum m ary j u dg m en t , an d D E N Yt h e P l an ’ s m ot i on to str ik e new evi den ce o ffe r e db yF lo r e s o n a p p e a l. Fl o r e s , apa r t i c i pa nti n t he Pl an, w as i nj ur e d i n a n a ut o m o bil e a c c i de nt an d received$ 315 , 512 . 62 w ort h of m edi calcoverag e fr om the P l an . F l ores l ater s e t t l e d wi t h at hi r d- pa r t y f o r$ 85 0, 00 0 f

o rcl ai m s ar i s i ng o utof t he a c c i de nt . The m on ey i s hel d i n t h e t ru st a cc o u n tof hi s at t orneys, M i da n i , H i n kle an d C ol e. Pu r suantt o apr ovi si on o f t he Pl an t hatr equir ed r ei m b u rsem entf orm edi c al be ne f i t s pa i d, AT& T s o ugh tr e i m bur s e m e ntf r o m Fl o r e s f

r o m f unds f r o m t he 1 se t t l em ent . Fl or es r ef use d an d A T& T f

i l ed sui ti n di st r i c tcour t , pu r suantt o 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 ), w h ic h a u th o r iz e s civ il s u its to o b ta in “a p p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e l i e f ” t o e nf o r c e a n E R ISA pl an’ s t e r m s . AT & T s o ugh ts pe c if i cr e l i e f i n t he for m of: ( 1 ) th e im p o sition o f a c o n str u ctiv e tru st a n deq u ita b le lien ; (2 ) a de c l ar at i o n t hatt he P l an w as t he t r ue o w ne ro f t he s e t t l e m e ntf

unds up t o t he am ou n titpaid; an d ( 3) an order directi n g F l ores an d h i s at t orneys to t u rn over th e d is p u te dfu n d s . A T& T f

i l ed f ors um m ar y j udgm en t, an d no r es ponsew as f i l ed by A p p ell a n ts. T h e d i stri ct co u rt g ra n tedsu m m a ryj u d gm en t t o A T & T . A p p ell a n ts f i l e d f o r a M ot i o n f

o raN e w Tr i al , i n whi c h t he y r ai s e d ne w a r gum e nt s ; t he d i stri ct cou rt t rea tedthe m oti on as a M oti on f or R eco n sider a ti on a n d d en i edit. T h i s C ou rt revi ew s th e gran tof sum m ary j u dg m en ti n an E R ISAcase de no vo , a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s u s e db yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. W ade v .N o. 08- 50860

§1132( a) ( 3) hol ds t hata civi lac t i on m ay be br oug ht : “ [B ]y a p ar ti ci pan t , benef i ci ar y, or 2 f i d u c i a r y (A ) t o e nj o i n a n y a c to rp r a c t i c e w h i c h v i o l a t e s a n y p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s s u b c h a p t e ro rt h e t e r ms o f th e p lan , o r (B ) to o b ta in o th e r a p p ro p ria te e q u it a b le r e lie f (i) to re d re ss su ch v io latio n s o r (ii) to e n fo r c e a n y p r o v isio n s o f th is s u b c h a p te ro rth e te r m s o f th e p la n .” 3 He w le t t - Pac ka r d D e v e lo pm e ntCo . L P Shor tT e r m D i s ab i l i tyPlan , 493 F. 3d 533, 537 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) . S u m m ary j u dg m en t i s proper w h en pl ead i n gs, dep osit i on s, di s c o ve r ya n s we r s , a n da f f i d a v i t s r e v e a ln o g e n u i n e i s s u e o f mat e r i a lfa c ta nd s h o w th e m o v a n t is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f la w . A n d erso n v. L ib er ty L obby, I

n c. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 7

– 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). T h e is sues ad dressed by t h e d i st ri ctcou rtw ere w h et h er A T & T ’ s r equ est f or ( 1) a c ons t r uct ive t r ust and ( 2) an eq ui t abl e li en ar e j ust if i ed i n l aw ; and ( 3) w h e th e rA T & T ’ s b a s is fo rits cla im is e q u ita b le . 1. Con st ruct i ve t rust I n B om ba rdie r A eros pa ce E mploye e W

el f are B enef

i t s P lan v. F

errer, Poi rot andW an sb rough , 3 5 4 F .3 d3 4 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), a n E R IS Ap la n b r o u g h t s u it aga i n sta pl an parti ci pa n tan d l aw f i rm t o obtai n a constru ct ive t rust over se t t l em entf

und s, f ort he purpo se s of

r ei m burs em entof

m edi c albe nef

i t s. I n t hat ca se , w e es ta b li sh e dth a t a co n str u ctiv e tru st w a s “a p p ro p ria te eq u ita b le re li e f” properl y soug h tun der 29 U . S . C . § 1132 ( a) ( 3) . Th e B om ba rdie r cou rt se t ou t a 2 t h ree- pa rtt estt o deter m i n e w h et h er a c l ai m qu al if i ed as reli ef p u rs u a n tt o § 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 ), a s k in g : d o e s th e P la n s e e kto re c o v e rfu n d s (1 ) th a t a r e s p e c ific a lly i den t if i able, ( 2) t h at bel on g i n good consci en ce t o t h e P l an , a n d (3 ) th at are w i t h i n the p osses si on an d controlof t h e defen da n tben ef

i ci ary? Id . at 356 . H ere, as i n B om ba rdie r , the f u n d s ar e spe ci fica l ly i d en tifi a b l e, d u e t o th e se ttl em en t; b e lon gi n good consci en ce t o t h e P l an ( du e t o t h e un am bi gu ou s s u brogati on p r o v i s i o n ) ; a n da r e wi t h i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n a n dc o n t r o lo f t h e d e fe nda nt be ne f i c i ary, a s t h ey ar e b e i ng he l d i n t r us tb y Fl o r e s ’ s a t t o r ne ys . Thus , t heN o. 08- 50860

4 c o ns t r uc t ivet r us tr e m e dyw as an appr o pr i at e o ne f o rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o g r ant t o A l l st ate. 2. Equ i t ab le l i en T h e Su prem e C ou rtconsi dered the u se of equ i t able l i en s f

or the pu rpose o f t he r e c o ve r y o f

b e ne f i t s pa i d o utb y an ER I SA pl an i n S er eb off v . Mid -A tla n tic Medic al S ervi ces , 5 47 U . S. 3 56 ( 20 06 ) . U nde rc i r c um s t anc e s v e r y s i m i l art o t he i n s t ant c as e , t he Supr e m e Cour t he l d t hat an e quit ab l e l i e n pl aced on “sp e cifica llyide n tifi a b le” fu n d s th a t w e re “inth e p o ss e s s io n of [th e p la in tiffs]” w a s a n “a p p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e m e d y” u n d e r§ 1 1 3 2 (a )(3 ). S er eb off , 547 U . S. at 3 6 2 . A s p r e v io u s ly d is c u s s e d , th e fu n d s inth is ca s e a r e s p e c ific a llyid e n tifia b le an d i n possess i on of t h e P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l an t s; t h e di st ri ct court t h u s di d not err in g r a n tin ga ne q u ita b le lie n to th e P la n . 3. Equi tyof

e nf o r c e m e ntandt he“

m ade

- w ho le ”

do c t r i ne T h ou gh const ructive t rusts an d equi t able l i en s are ap propri ate r em edi es § 113 2( a) ( 3) , A T & T m u stst i l lest abli sh that th e basi s f or it s c l ai m i s equit able. S er eb off

, 547 U . S . at 363 . Flor es argues t h at itw ou l d be i n equ i t able t o enfor ce t h e contr acti n t h i s c ase, w h i ch i s “h arsh, u n consci on able, [ an d] u n fai r. ” Flor es addi t i onal ly i nvokes t he “ m ade w hol e”doc t r i ne, w hi c h hol ds t hat subr ogati on/r ei m burs em en t p r ovi si ons i n i nsur ancec ont r ac t s sho ul d notbe en f orced un t i lt h e i n sured is fi rstm ad e w h ol e, i . e. rec overed al lcom pen satory d a m a g e s to w h ic h h e is e n tit le d . The s ubr o ga t i o n pr o vi s i o n o f t he pl an ati s s ue c l e ar ly pr o vi de s t hatt he Pl an i s ent i t l ed t o r ei m burs em entoutof paym ent s m ade b y an i nj uri ng par t y, andsi m i l arpr o vi s i o ns havebe e n e nf o r c e d b y t he t hi s Cour t . I n S u n beam

- O st er Compa ny, I

n c. v. W

h i t ehu rst , 102 F. 3d 1368, 1376 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) , w h i c h w as r e lie d o n b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e reje c te dth e “m a d e w h o le ” d o c tr in e w h e r e itN o. 08- 50860

5 w as no te xp r e s s ly i nc l ude d i n t he l ang uag e o f t he pl an, and he l d t hat a c l e ara nd u n a m b ig u o u s s u b r o g a tio n /re im b u r s e m e n t p r o v is io n e n tit le dt h e P la n t o th e fu ll a mo u n to f

me d i c a lb e n e f

i t s p a i do n t h e i n s ur e d ’ s b e h a l f. We f o l l o w S u n b e a mO st era n dfin dth a t t h e s u b r o g a tio n /r e i m b u r s e m e n t p r o v is io n inth is ca s e is equ i t able an d n otsubj ectt o t h e “ m ad e w h ol e” doct ri n e. 4. Mot i on t o st ri ke new evi d ence A T& T ar gues t hat Fl or es i nt r oduc es evi denc e i nt o t he r ec or d on ap p eal t hatw as no tpr e s e nt e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , a nd u r ge s t hatt he Cour ts t r i ke t h e p rof fered evi den ce. M u ch of w h at A T & T argu es c on st i t u t es “ n ew evi den ce” a r e a c tu a llyju s t a r g u m e n ts (in c lu d in gco n c lu s o r ya s s e r tio n s ) m a d e b yF lo r e s in h is b r ie f; F lo r e s d o e s n o t o ffe ra n ya c tu a l e v id e n c e in to th e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l. T h u s, w e D E N Yt h e m ot i on t o st rike n ew evi den ce. F or th e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e D E N Yt h e m ot i on t o st rike n ew evi den ce, a n dA F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t.