1 0 -0 7 1 8 -cv

De nnis C. K el ly

v. H andy & H ar m an, e t a l. 

### UNITED ST

A TES COUR

T OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT
SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U L IN G S BY S U MMAR Y O RDER

D O N OT HA

V E PR E C E D E N T IA L E FFE C T. C IT A T ION T O A SUMM AR

Y O RDER F ILED ON OR AF TER JANUAR Y 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY T HIS C OUR

T’S L OCAL R UL E 32. 1.1 A ND FED ER AL R UL E OF A PP EL LA TE PROCE DU RE 32 .1. WH EN CITING A SUMMAR Y ORDER IN A DOCUMENT F ILED WIT H T H I S COUR T , A P AR TY MU S T C IT E E IT HE R

T HE FE D E R

A L A PPE N D IX

OR A N E L E C T R ON IC DA T AB A S E ( WI T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R

Y OR D E R ” ) . AP

A R T Y C I T I N G A SU M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R

V E AC OP Y OF IT ON AN Y P

AR TY N OT REPRE SE NT ED BY COUN SE L. At a stated T

erm of the United S tates Court of Appe als for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United S tates Courthouse, 500 Pear l S tree t, in the Cit y of Ne w Y

ork, on the 19 day

of January

, two thousand eleve n. th
Pr e se nt: RO SEM AR Y S. POO L ER, ROBER T A. KA TZ MANN, RI CHARD C. W ESL EY

, Cir cuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ D E NN IS C

. K E LL

Y , Plaintif f-Appellant ,

-v .- 10-0718-c v HANDY& H ARMAN, WHX CORPOR A TI ON, HAN DY & HARMAN SUPP L EMENT

AL EXECUTIVE RETI REMENT PL AN, HAN DY & HARMAN EXE CU TI VE P OS T

-R ETI RE ME NT L I FE I

NS URANC E P RO GRAM , HANDY & HARMAN PENSI ON PL AN/WHX PENSI ON PL AN, HAN DY & HARMAN MA NA GE MENT I

NC EN TIVE PL AN , H AN DY& HA RMA N L ON G- TE RM I NCENTI VE PL AN, I

NCENTIVE AND NON- QUAL I FI ED ST OCK OPTI ON PL AN, THE H ANDY & HARMAN POST -RETI REMENT MEDI CALPL AN, Defendants-A

ppellees

.

For Appellant: L eslie D. Corwin (Timothy E. Di Domenico, on the brief ) , G r e e nb e rg T raur ig, L L P

, New Y ork, NY

.-2-

For Appellee s: Thomas J . Fleming , Olshan Grundma n Fr ome Rosenzweig & W olosky L L P , New Y ork, NY

. Appea l f rom the United S tates District Court for the Southern District of Ne w Y ork (Gw in, J. , sitti ng by desig nation).
ON CO NSI DE RA

TIO N W HEREOF , IT I S HEREBYOR DE RE D , AD JU DGED , AND DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id d ist ri c t c ourt be and he re by is AF F IRM ED

. De nn is C . K e lly

a pp e a ls t he d is tr ict cou rt ’s Feb ruary 16 , 2 01 0 j ud gment grant in g Defen da nts ’ motion for summary

judgme nt, denying K elly ’s motion for par tial summary

judgme nt, and dis mis sin g Ke lly ’s c om pl ain t. W e a ssume the pa

rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

, a nd iss ue s p re se nte d o n a

pp e a l. W e re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt d e no vo , v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in the l ight most favor able to the non-moving party and dra wing all rea sonable infe renc es in his favor

. Burke v . Kodak Ret. Inc ome Plan , 3 36 F .3d 1 03 , 1 09 (2 d Ci r . 2 00 3) . Summa

ry jud g me nt i s a pp ro pr iate if

“ the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri al fact an d th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law .” F ed. R. Civ . P

. 56(a) . In an ERI SA action wh er e, as h er e, “written pla n d oc ume nts c on fe r u

po n a pla n a dmi nis tr a tor the dis c re tio na ry a uth or ity to d e te rm ine e lig ibi lity , we will not disturb the admini strator’s ulti mate conclusion unless it i s ‘ar bitrary and ca pricious.’” Hobson v . Metr o. Life Ins. Co. , 5 7 4 F

. 3 d 7 5 , 8 2 (2 d C i r
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Pagan v . NY NEX Pension Plan , 52 F .3d 438, 441 (2d Cir. 1995) (inter nal quotation marks omitted)). “[A] plan under

which an a dminist rator both e valuates a nd pay s benef

its claims creates the kind of conflict of interest that courts must take into a ccount and weig h as a f actor in determining whether there was a

n abuse of discretion, but does not make de novo revie w appr opriate.” Id. at 82- 8 3 (q u o t i n g McCauley

v . First Unum Lif

e Ins. Co. , 551 F .3d 126, 133 (2d Cir

. 2008)). A plaintif f’s showing that the administrator’s conflict of interest af fec ted the choice of a rea sonable interpr etation is one of “se vera l dif

fer ent consider ations” that judg es must take into a ccount when “re view[ing] the lawfulne ss of benefit denials.” McCauley , 551 F .3d at 133 (citation omitted). “No w eig ht is given to a conf lict in the ab s en ce o f any evidenc e that the c onflict ac tually af fec ted the administrator’ s decision.” Durakov ic v

. Bldg. Serv

. 32 BJ Pension Fund , 609 F .3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2010) (c iting Hobson , 574 F .3d at 83).
I n light of the se principles, and afte r an exhaustive revie w of the recor d, we c onclude that the distri c t c o u

r t p r o p e r ly gr a nte d D e f e n d a nts ’ s u mm a ry judgme nt motion because the plan administrator did not act ar

bitrarily or ca priciously in denying Kelly ’s request for be nefits. Acc ording ly , we a f firm the d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g r an t o f s u mm ar y ju d g me n t f

o r D e f e n d an ts an d

d e n ia l o f

p arti a l s u mmary jud g me nt f

or Ke lly , f or su bs tanti a lly

the same re a so ns art ic ulate d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

. I n add i t i o n , t h e d i s tri ct co u rt d i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o ni nd ec l i n i n g t o ex er ci s e s u p p l emental jur isd ic tio n o ve r K e lly ’s re ma ini ngstate -l aw c la im a ft e r i t di smi sse d a ll o f K e lly ’s fede ra l c la ims be fo re tr ia l. I nd e e d, “ if a pla int if f’ s fe de ra l cla ims are dis mis se d be fo re tr ia l, ‘ the state c la ims sh ou ld-3-

be dis missed as we ll.’” Brzak v
. United Nations , 5 9 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 3 -1 4 (2 d

C i r
. 2 0 1 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Cave v . E. Meadow Union Fr

ee Sc h. Dist. , 514 F .3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008)).
L astly , Kelly reque sts attorney s’ fe es under 29 U.S.C. § 1 132(g )(1) . Kelly ’s re quest is denied beca use he ha s not shown “some deg ree of succ ess on the mer its” and there fore is not eligible for an aw ard of

attorney s’ fe es u n d er Section 1 132. Har dt v . RelianceS

tandar d Life Ins. Co. , 1 30 S. Ct. 2149, 2158 (2010). W e have c on sid e re d a ll o f K e lly ’s re ma ini ngarg ume nts and fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED

.

F O R T H E C O U RT: Catherine O ’Ha g an W

olfe, Clerk