11-423-cv

Arditi v. Lighthouse Int'l UN I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F A P PEAL S FOR T HE S E C ON D C I RC U I T Augus t Term 201 1 (Argu ed: August25, 2011 D ecide d: Fe bruar y 9, 2012) Docke t No. 11-4 23-cv



### AR I E S 

### AR D I T I 

### ,

Plain tiff-Appel lant , v. 

### L I G H T H O U S E 

### I N T E RNA T I O NA L 

### ,

Defen dant-Appel lee . Befor e: S T RAU B and C H I N , Circu it Ju dges , and

P RE S KA , Chief

Dist rict Judge . *

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt ofthe Unite d Sta tes Distr ict C ourt for t he So uther n Dis trictof N ew Yo rk (C ote, J. ) den ying plain tiff- appel lant' s mot ion t o rem and t he ca se

The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge, * United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.to st ate c ourt on fe deral pree mptio n gro unds underthe

Emplo yee Retire ment Income Sec urityAct and d ismis sing the actio n forfail ure t o sta te a plaus ible claimfor relie f.

Judge P RE S KAdiss ents in a separ ate o pinio n. AFFIRMED.

RO NA L D S. G RE E N B E R G (Jare d I. Helle r, on th e

brief ), Kr amer LevinNaft alis & Frank el LL P, Ne w Yor k, Ne w Yor k, for Plain tiff-Appel lant . M I C H E L L E S C H O T T (Curt is C. Mech ling, Joan na S. Sm ith, on th e bri ef ), St roock& Stroo ck & LavanLLP, New York, New York, for D efendant-A ppell ee .

C H I N , Circu it Ju dge :

In th is ca se, t he di stric t cou rt fo und t hat plain tiff- appel lant Aries Ardi ti's claim s aga inst defen dantappel lee L ighth ouse Inter natio nal ( "Ligh thous e") w ere preempted by th e Emp loyee Reti remen t Inc ome S ecuri ty Ac t ("ERI SA") becau se th ey ar ose u nder Light house 's Pensi on Pl an (the "Plan ") an d notsepa ratel y andinde pende ntly out o f Ardit i's w ritte n emp loyme nt ag reeme nt (t he "Agreement") . -2-The d istri ct co urt d eniedArdi ti's motio n to reman d the case

to st ate c ourt, hold ing t hat A rditi 's cl aims were preempted by ER ISA a nd th at hi s sui t was ther efore prop erly remov ed to feder al co urt. The distr ict c ourt then dismi ssed the a ction for f ailur e to state a cl aim b ecaus e Ard iti h ad no t sta ted any b asis for c halle ngingLigh thous e's a uthor ity t o ame nd the P lan. On ap peal, Ardi ti ar gues that the a dditi onal benef its h e see ks ar e bas ed ona pr omise sepa rate and indep enden t fro m the Plan . We disa gree. Acc ordin gly, we affirm the dist rict court 's de nial of Ar diti' s mot ion t o

reman d the case to s tate courtand dismi ssal of th e act ion for f ailur e to state a cl aim u pon which relie f maybe grant ed. STATE MENT OF TH

E CAS E 1. The F

acts The f ollow ing f acts are u ndisp uted. From 1982 to 20 00, A rditi was emplo yed b y Light house as a"vis ion s cient ist." Dur ing t his t ime, under the P lan, Ardit i acc rued 18.83 year s of servi ce cr edit.

-3-In 20 00, A rditi leftLigh thous e, ac cepti ng

emplo ymentelse where . Af ter h is de partu re, L ighth ouse amend ed th e Pla n, ad ding a "Ru le of85," whic h ent itledany quali fied emplo yee t o ret ire a nd co llecther pensi on benef its b efore the age o f 65 if th e sumof t he employe e's age a nd ye ars o f ves ted s ervic e wer e equ al toor g reate r than 85. The Planalsorese rved Light house 's ri ght t o

1 amendthe Plan, stat ing: "Ligh thous e res erves the rightat

The relevant provisions of the Plan were as follows: 1 Effective April 1, 2001, if a Member's combined age and years of Vesting Service equals 85 or more the early retirement benefit shall be equal to his Accrued Benefit at such Early Retirement Date; however, such early retirement benefit shall not be subject to reduction.

. . . If a former Member is reemployed following a Period of Severence of more than 12 months, he shall again become a Member on his Reemployment Date. Such Member's Vesting Service and Credited Service shall be restored upon his completion of one year of Continuous Service . . . (Barr Decl., ECF Doc. No. 11-2, Ex. B ¶¶ 5.1(c), 7.3(b), Arditi v. Lighthouse Int'l , No. 10 Civ. 8416 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2010)). -4-any t ime, by ac tion of th e Boa rd, t o mod ify o r ame nd th e

Plan in wh ole o r in part. " (B arr D ecl., Ex. B ¶ 1 4.1).

On Ju ly 1, 2002 , Ard iti r eturn ed toLigh thous e, in part to ta ke advanta ge ofthe Rule of 85 amen dment . The Agree ment, whic h was date d Jun e 13, 2002 and signe d by both parti es, r ead a s fol lows:

With respe ct tothe . . . Plan , in which you a re al readyfull y ves ted, your new emplo ymenthere will resu lt in reins tatement a s a p lan member . Yo u now have credi ted s ervic e forpurp oses of pensi on ca lcula tion of 18 .83 y ears of previ ous s ervic e andthe amoun t of time you w ork h ere i n the futu re wi ll be added . Our r etire ment plan has n ow ad ded aRule of 85 prov isionthatprov ides an unreduced benef it toempl oyees whos e age plus years equa l 85 or mo re. As yo u are now a ge 51 , you r age plus youryear s of servi ce is appr oxima tely 70 ye ars. Assum ing y ou co ntinu e to work at th e Light house for anoth er ei ght y ears, your age t hen, 59 an d yea rs ofserv ice t hen, 26, w ould equal 85. At t hat t ime i f you opt t o ret ire y ou wi ll re ceive an unreduced pensi on be nefit .

-5-(Gree nbergDecl ., EC F Doc . No. 17-1 , Ex. A at2, Ardit i v.

Light houseInt' l , No. 10 C iv. 8 416 ( S.D.N .Y. D ec. 1 0, 2010) ). On Ma y 14, 2007 , Lig hthou se no tifie d Pla n members, inclu ding Ardit i, th at th e Pla n wou ld be froz en. Indee d, on June 30, 2 007, befor e Ard iti's age and y ears of se rvice reach ed a total of e ighty -five , the Planwas froze n. T he freez e sto pped the a ccrua l of servi ce ti me fo r all Plan membe rs. On Ma rch 1 9, 20 10, A rditi reti red. Becau se ofthe freez e, Li ghtho use d id no t cre dit A rditi for nearl y thr ee years of s ervic e -- from July 1, 20 07 (t he da te Li ghtho use froze the Plan) to M arch 19, 2 010 ( the d ate A rditi reti red). 2. Proce edings Bel ow

On Se ptemb er 30 , 201 0, Ar diti fileda la wsuit again st Li ghtho use i n sta te co urt, seeki ng a decla rator y judgment a nd as serti ng tw o cau ses o f act ion f or br each of contr act. The compl aint expre ssly refer red t o the Planand sough t ben efits unde r the Plan . Li ghtho use r emove d the

-6-actio n to feder al co urt. Ardi ti pr omptl y andvolu ntari ly

disco ntinu ed th e act ion.

On No vembe r 2, 2010, Ardi ti re plead ed hi s cla ims and r efile d the laws uit i n sta te co urt. The new c ompla int conta ined the s ame t wo ca uses of ac tion as th e fir st compl aint, but elimi natedcert ain d irectrefe rence s to the Plan and t o ERI SA.

The s econdacti on wa s als o rem oved to fe deral court . OnNove mber 15, 2 010, Ardit i fil ed a motio n to

reman d to state cour t. O n Nov ember19, 2010, Ligh thous e fileda mo tion to di smiss the compl aint pursu ant t o Fed eral Rule of Ci vil P rocedure 1 2(b)( 6).

On Ja nuary18, 2011, the distr ict c ourt denie d Ardit i's m otionto r emandand dismi ssed the c ompla int. Ardit i v. Light houseInt' l , No. 10 C iv. 8 416, 2011 WL 16 6919 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 18, 2 011). The dist rict courtheldthat Ardit i's c laim was p roper ly re movedto f edera l cou rt be cause it wa s pre empte d by ERISA . Id. at * 4; see ERISA§ 50 2, 29 U.S.C . § 1 132. The distr ict c ourt also held that dismi ssal of th e complain t was warr antedbeca use A rditi fail ed to

-7-state any basis for chall engin g Lig hthou se's autho rity to

amendthe Plan. Ardit i , 201 1 WL 16691 9, at*4.

This appea l fol lowed .

DISCU SSION We re view a dis trictcour t's E RISA preemption rulin g and12(b )(6) dismi ssal for f ailur e to state a cl aim de no vo . Stevensonv. B ank o f N.Y . Co. , 609 F.3d56, 59 (2 d Cir. 2010) (pre empti on ru ling) ; Selevan v. N.Y. Thru way Auth. , 584 F.3d82, 88 (2 d Cir . 200 9) (Rule 1 2(b)( 6) dismi ssal) . Fi rst, we ex amine the distr ict c ourt' s den ial of Ar diti' s mot ion t o rem and t he ca se tostat e cou rt. Secon d, we cons ider the d istri ct co urt's dism issal of t he

case for f ailur e to state a cl aim. I. Motion to Reman d A. Appli cableLaw 1. Remov

al "[A]n y civ il ac tion broug ht ina St ate c ourt of whichthe distr ict c ourts of t he Un ited State s hav e ori ginal juris dicti on, m ay be remo ved b y the defe ndant " to feder al court . 28 U.S. C. § 1441( a). Distr ict c ourts have orig inal

-8-juris dicti on ov er "f edera l que stion " cas es, o r cas es

"aris ing u nder the C onsti tutio n, la ws, o r tre aties of t he Unite d Sta tes." 28 U.S.C . § 1 331. To d eterm ine i f a c ase invol ves afede ral questi on, c ourts gene rallyturnto t he "well -plea ded c ompla int" rule –- th at is , cou rts e xamin e "whatnece ssari ly ap pears in t he pl ainti ff's state ment of his o wn cl aim . . . unaid ed byanyt hing alleg ed in antic ipati on ofavoi dance of d efens es . . . [ that] the defen dant may i nterp ose." AetnaHeal th In c. v. Davi la , 542 U.S. 200, 207 ( 2004) (quo ting Taylo r v. Ander son , 234 U.S. 74, 7 5-76 (1914 )) (i ntern al qu otati on ma rks o mitte d).

Feder al pr eempt ion p rovid es on e exc eptio n to the well- plead ed co mplai nt ru le. See i d. "Wh en a feder al statu te wh olly displ aces the s tate- law c ause of ac tion throu gh co mplet e pre -empt ion, the s tate claimcan be

remov ed" t o fed eral court . Id. (quot ing Beneficial Nat. Bank v. An derso n , 539 U.S. 1, 8 (200 3)) ( inter nal quotat ion marks omit ted). "ER ISA i s one of t hese statu tes." Id. at 208. "Thi s is so be cause whenthe feder al st atute compl etelypre- empts the state -law cause of a ction , . . . -9-even if pl eadedin t erms of st ate l aw, [ it] i s in reali ty

basedon f edera l law ." Id. at 2 07-08 (int ernal quot ation marks omit ted). Thi s exc eptio n als o pre vents plai ntiff s from "avoi d[ing ] rem oval" to f edera l cou rt "b y dec linin g to pleadnece ssaryfede ral questi ons." Roman o v. Kazac os , 609 F.3d 512, 519 ( 2d Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Rivetv. R egion s Ban k , 522 U .S. 4 70, 4 75 (1 998) (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted).

2. ERISA

Preemption "Cong ress enact ed ER ISA t o 'pr otect. . . the inter ests of pa rtici pants in e mploy ee be nefitplan s and theirbene ficia ries' by s ettin g outsubs tanti ve re gulat ory requi remen ts fo r emp loyee bene fit p lans and t o 'pr ovid[ e] for a pprop riate reme dies, sanc tions , andread y acc ess t o the Feder al co urts. '" Davil a , 542 U.S. at 2 08 (quotin g 29 U.S.C . § 1 001(b )). Secti on 50 2(a)( 1)(B) of E RISA provi des parti cipan ts orbene ficia ries with a civ il re medy to re cover benef its due un der t heir plans , to enfor ce ri ghts under theirplan s, orto c larif y rig hts t o fut ure b enefi ts un der theirplan s. E RISA § 502 (a)(1 )(B), 29 U .S.C. § 11 32(a) .

-10-To es tabli sh a "unif orm r egula tory regime ove r

emplo yee b enefi t pla ns," and " to en sure that emplo yee benef it pl an re gulat ion i s exc lusiv ely afede ral c oncer n," ERISAincl udes expan sive pre-e mptio n pro visio ns. Davil a , 542 U .S. a t 208 (inte rnal quota tion marks and citat ions omitt ed); seeERIS A § 5 14, 2 9 U.S .C. §1144 . ER ISA p rovid es that it "s hall super sede any a nd al l Sta te la ws in sofaras they may n ow orhere afterrela te toany emplo yee b enefi t plan. " ER ISA §514, 29 U .S.C. § 11 44.

Underthe Supre me Co urt's testin Davil a , ERISA preempts acaus e of actio n where : (1) "an indiv idual , at

some pointin t ime, couldhave brou ght h is orher claim underERIS A § 5 02(a) (1)(B );" a nd (2 ) "noothe r ind epend ent legal duty. . . is impli catedby adefe ndant 's ac tions ." Davil a , 542 U.S. at 2 10; see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teams ters Local 272 , 642 F.3d321, 328 (2d C ir. 2 011) (appl ying the Davil atwo- part conju nctiv e test) . Toavoi d poten tial confu sion underthe firstpron g of Davil a , thi s Courthas furth er cl arifi ed th at th e pla intif f mus t sho w that: (a) he is the type of pa rty who ca n bri ng a claim

-11-pursu ant t o § 5 02(a) (1)(B ) of ERISA ; and(b) the a ctual

claimasse rted can b e con strue d as a col orabl e cla im fo r benef its p ursua nt to§ 50 2(a)( 1)(B) . Monte fiore , 642 F.3d at 32 8. B. Appli cation 1. ERISA

Preemption First , in this case, Davil a 's fi rst p rong is satis fied becau se Ar diti couldhave brou ght h is cl aim u nder ERISA . See Davila , 542 U.S. at 2 10. Indee d, he did so in his c ompla int i n the firs t act ion. Unde r Monte fiore , Ard iti is th e typ e of partywho can b ring an ER ISA c laim becau se he is a Plan parti cipan t andhe i s see king benef its u nder the Plan and, speci fical ly, u nder the Rule o f 85 provi sion. See Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 3 28. Addit ional ly, A rditi 's ac tual claim s ass ertedseekenfo rceme nt ofspec ific provi sions of the P lan, "impl icate cove rage and b enefi ts es tabli shed by the t erms of th e ERI SA be nefitplan ," an d "ca n be const rued

as . . . c olora ble c laim[ s] fo r ben efits purs uant to § 502(a )(1)( B)." Id.

-12-Secon d, Davil a 's se cond prongis a lso s atisf ied

becau se "n o oth er in depen dent legal duty " is impli catedby Light house 's ac tions . See Davila , 542 U.S. at 2 10; Monte fiore , 642 F .3d a t 328 . Li ghtho use's obli gatio ns un der the P lan a re "i nextr icabl y int ertwi ned w ith t he inter preta tion of Pl an co verag e andbene fits" and "[do] not creat e a s uffic ientl y ind epend ent duty u nder Davil a ." See Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 3 32.

To av oid E RISA preemption , Ard iti a rgues thathe is no t see king benef its u nder the P lan. Inst ead, Ardit i claim s tha t he is se ekingdama ges f or br each of a promi se separ ate a nd in depen dent from the P lan a nd se t for th inthe Agree ment, usin g the Planmere ly as a be nchma rk fo r dam ages.

The a rgume nt fa ils b ecaus e Ard iti w as infacta parti cipan t in the P lan a nd hi s pen sion right s aro se un der the P lan. WhenArdi ti re joine d Lig hthou se, t he Ag reeme nt state d: "W ith r espec t to the L ighth ouse Inter natio nal Pensi on Pl an, i n whi ch yo u are alre ady f ully veste d, yo ur

new e mployment here will resul t in reins tatement a s a p lan membe r." (Gree nbergDecl ., Ex . A a t 2 ( empha sis a dded) ).

-13-The Agreement f urthe r des cribe d Lig hthou se's "Rule of 8 5"

provi sion as a new a dditi on to"[o] ur re tirement p lan." (Gree nbergDecl ., Ex . A a t 2). Hen ce, t he la nguag e of the Agree ment makes clea r tha t Ard iti w as be ing " reins tate[ d]" into the P lan, and t hat t he Ru le of85 p rovis ion h ad be en "adde d" tothe Plan. ( Id. ). T he Ag reeme nt de scrib ed th e benef its t hat A rditi woul d acquire upon his r eturnto t he Plan and m ade c lear that Ardit i's b enefi ts ar ose f rom, and

were gover ned b y, th e terms ofthe Plan. The Planprov ided

more than a mer e ben chmar k forcalc ulati ng damages ; ind eed, it wa s the basi s forthe claimed be nefit s. T hus, as th e distr ict c ourt corre ctly held, the Agree ment did n ot estab lish a sep arate and indep enden t pro mise; rath er, Ardit i's c laims deri ved d irect ly fr om th e Pla n.

The D issen t arg ues t hat " [a]lt houghArdi ti wa s a parti cipan t in the P lan a nd en title d to recei ve a reduc ed benef it un der i t, he rais es atleas t a c olora ble c laim that his r ight in ge neral to r eceiv e 'anunre ducedpens ion benef it' u pon r etire ment -- th at is , a d iffer ent b enefi t from that payab le un der t he Pl an -- aris es un der t he express

-14-terms of h is employment a greement." (Di ssentOp. at 6- 7

(emph asis in di ssent ing o pinio n) (quotin g Gre enber g Dec l., Ex. Aat 2 )). The p hrase "unr educe d pen sion benef it" appea rs inthe last sente nce o f the seco nd pa ragra ph ofthe

secon d pag e of the Agreement. (Gre enber g Dec l., E x. A at 2). That parag raph, howe ver, begin s as follo ws: "Our retir ementplanhas now a dded a Rul e of 85 pr ovisi on th at provi des a n unr educe d ben efit to employe es wh ose a ge pl us years equa l 85 or mo re." (Gre enber g Dec l., E x. A at 2 (emph ases added )). In co ntext , the n, itis c lear that the "unre ducedpens ion b enefi ts" a rose from the P lan a nd no t the Agree ment.

Furth er, Steve nson , the case on which Ardit i relie s, is easi ly di sting uisha ble. Ther e, th e pla intif f left the e mployof t he de fenda nt ba nk. 609 F .3d a t 60. The bank nonet heles s pro misedto " maint ain [ the p laint iff's ] benef its" underits pensi on pl an, e ven t houghpens ion benef iciar ies w ould norma lly l ose c overa ge up on en ding their emplo ymentwiththe bank. Id. This Courtheldthatthe plain tiff' s complain t did"notderi ve[] from the p artic ular

-15-right s andobli gatio ns es tabli shed by [a ny] b enefi t pla n[]

. . . but rathe r[,] from a sep arate prom ise t hat r efere nces vario us be nefitplan s." Id. at 6 0-61 (quot ing Davil a , 542 U.S. at 21 3) (i ntern al qu otati on ma rks a nd ci tatio ns omitt ed). Here, ther e is nothi ng inthe Agree ment that is compa rable to t he pr omise s mad e in Steve nson . See i d. at 60. In Steve nson , an agree ment separ ate a nd in depen dent from the p ensio n pla n gov ernedthe plain tiff' s ben efits becau se th e pla intif f was no l ongerin t he ba nk's emplo y and

was n o lon ger apart icipa nt inthe bank' s pla n. Id. at 6 0- 61. Whate ver r ights the plain tiff had a rose not f rom t he bank' s pla n, bu t fro m the inde pende nt ag reeme nt th at ga ve him b enefi ts ev en th ough he ha d no rightto t hem u nder the plan. Her e, th e Agr eemen t exp ressl y ref erredto A rditi 's "rein state ment" intothe Plan as a Light house empl oyee and descr ibed Ardit i's b enefi ts un der t he Pl an up on hi s ret urn to Li ghtho use. The Agree ment merel y des cribe d the bene fits Ardit i wou ld re ceive as aPlanmemb er; i t mad e no promi ses

-16-of be nefit s sep arate and indep enden t fro m the bene fits under

the P lan. Accor dingl y, we agre e wit h the dist rict courtthat Ardit i's c laims are preempted by ER ISA.

2. Remov

al The d istri ct co urt p roper ly de nied Ardit i's m otion to re mand the c ase t o sta te co urt b ecaus e Ard iti's stat e law claim s are pree mptedby E RISA. The suitwas prope rly

remov ed tofede ral c ourt, the distr ict c ourt had f edera l juris dicti on ov er th e cas e, an d rem and t o sta te co urt w as not w arran ted. See28 U .S.C. §§ 1 331, 1441( a). II. Motion to Dismi ss

"To s urviv e a m otionto d ismis s, a compl aint must conta in su ffici ent f actua l mat ter, accep ted a s tru e, to state a cl aim t o rel ief t hat i s pla usibl e on its f ace. A claimhas facia l pla usibi lity when the p laint iff p leads factu al co ntentthatallo ws th e cou rt todrawthe reaso nable infer ence that the d efend ant i s lia ble f or th e mis condu ct alleg ed." Ashcr oft v . Iqb al , 129 S. C t. 19 37, 1 949 ( 2009) (inte rnal quota tion marks and citat ions omitt ed).

-17-Here, the distr ict c ourt prope rly d ismis sed

Ardit i's c ompla int b ecaus e he faile d to state a cl aim f or relie f tha t was plau sible on i ts fa ce. See i d. Ard iti d id not c halle nge L ighth ouse' s aut horit y to amendthe Plan; indee d, Ar diti conce ded t hat L ighth ouse had t he au thori ty to freez e the Plan . Ac cordi ngly, the distr ict c ourt prope rly dismi ssed Ardit i's a ctionfor failu re tostat e a p lausi ble claim . Id. CONCL USION

We ha ve co nside red A rditi 's re maini ng ar gumen ts and c onclu de th at th ey ar e wit hout merit . Fo r the reas ons set f orth above , the judgment of th e dis trictcour t is AFFIRMED.

-18-P RE S KA , Chief Dist rict Judge , dis senti ng: The m ajori ty’s decis ion t oday reach es be yond the squar ely p resen ted questi on ofwhet her A rditi ’s cl aims are preempted by ER ISA a nd inso d oing effec tivel y rea ches the merit s of his u nderl ying state law contr act c laim again st Light house . Be cause the prope r for um fo r res olvin g the under lyingcont ract claimis t he st ate c ourt and t he major ity’s hold ing e visce rates any disti nctio n bet ween the feder al pr eempt ion a nd st ate l aw me rits quest ions, I respe ctful ly di ssent .

As th e maj oritynote s, indete rmini ng wh ethera

case invol ves afede ral questi on su ch th at re mand to a state courtwoul d be inapp ropri ate, court s loo k to the “ wellplead ed co mplai nt” - exam ining“wha t nec essar ily a ppear s in the p laint iff’s stat ementof h is ow n cla im . . . u naide d by anyth ing a llege d in antic ipati on ofavoi dance of d efens es

. . . [tha t] th e def endan t mayinte rpose .” Aet na He alth Inc. v. Da vila , 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004 ) (qu oting Taylo r v. Ander son , 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (191 4)) ( inter nal quotat ion marks omit ted). Forthe polic y rea sons descr ibed by th e major ity, ERISAserv es as an e xcept ion t o thi s rul e bec auseit “whollydisp laces the state -law cause of a ctionthro ugh

compl ete p re-emption .” Id. (quo tingBene ficia l Nat ’l Ba nk v. An derso n , 539 U.S. 1, 8 (200 3)) ( inter nal quotat ion m arks omitt ed). This exce ptiondoes , as the m ajori ty su ggest s, preve nt pl ainti ffs f rom “ avoid [ing] remo val” to fe deral court“by decli ning to pl ead ‘ neces sary feder al qu estio ns.’” Roman o v. Kazac os , 609 F.3d512, 519 (2d C ir. 2 010) (quot ing Rivetv. R egion s Ban k , 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998 )).

ERISApree mptio n doe s notoccu r, ho wever , sol ely becau se a state law claimmay alter nativ ely b e a c olora ble claimunde r the ERIS A sta tute. Und er th e Sup reme Court ’s test in Davil a , ERI SA pr eempt s a c ause of ac tion where : (1) “an i ndivi dual, at s ome p oint in ti me, c ould have broug ht his o r herclai m und er ER ISA §502( a)(1) (B);” and (2) “ no otherinde pende nt le gal duty . . . is implica ted b y a defen dant’ s act ions. ” Davil a , 542 U.S. at 2 10. This Court has c larif ied t hat t he fi rst p rong of Davil ais s atisf ied where : (a) a pl ainti ff is the type of pa rty who ca n bri ng a claimpurs uant to § 502(a )(1)( B) ofERIS A; an d (b) the actua l cla im as serte d canbe c onstr ued a s a c olora ble c laim for b enefi ts pu rsuan t to § 502 (a)(1 )(B). See Montefiore -2-Med. Ctr. v. Te amste rs Lo cal 2 72 , 642 F.3d321, 328 (2d C ir.

2011) . Th e maj orityconc ludes thatthe firstpron g of the Davil atestis s atisf ied b ecaus e Ard iti c ould have broug ht his c laim underERIS A andbeca use A rditi is t he type of partywho can b ring an ER ISA c laim as a Plan parti cipan t seeki ng be nefit s und er th e Rul e of 85 pr ovisi on. See Major ity Opinio n (“M ajori ty Op .”) a t 12. Tho ugh i t is not at al l cle ar tome t hat A rditi coul d mak e a c olora ble c laim for h is sp ecifi c requeste d rel ief u nder the P lan’s Rule of 85 pr ovisi on (a s the Planwas valid ly amendedto e xclud e this benef it, ( Barr Decl. , ECFDoc. No. 11-2, Ex. B ¶ 1 4.1, Ardit i v. Light houseInt’ l , No. 10 C iv. 8 416 ( S.D.N .Y. N ov. 19, 2 010)) , I w ill a cceptit a s tru e forthe purpo ses o f this opini on.

Even if th e maj orityis c orrec t in concl udingthat Davil a ’s fi rst p rong is me t, ER ISA p reemp tion still does not

occurunle ss “n o oth er in depen dent legal duty. . . is impli catedby adefe ndant ’s ac tions .” Davil a , 542 U.S. at 210 ( empha sis a dded) . Th e two Davil apron gs ar e indep enden t; ot herwi se co urts couldesse ntial ly co llaps e them into one b y fin ding that a pla intif f’s c laim is a -3-color able one u nder ERISAand goingno f urthe r. T he

major ity a ppear s to do sohere . SeeMajo rity Op. a t 12- 13. The m ajori ty co nclud es th at Li ghtho use’s obli gatio ns to Ardit i und er th e Pla n are “ine xtric ably inter twine d wit h the inter preta tion of Pl an co verag e andbene fits” and there fore “[do] not creat e a s uffic ientl y ind epend ent duty u nder Davil a .” See i d. at 13 (cit ing Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 332). As this Courtrece ntly state d, ho wever , an indep enden t leg al du ty in corpo ratin g Pla n ben efits or relyi ng onPlanterm s andcalc ulati ons d oes n ot initse lf lead to ER ISA p reemp tion. See S teven son v . Ban k of N.Y. Co. , 609 F.3d56, 61 (2 d Cir . 201 0). Court s mus t loo k to the n ature of aplai ntiff ’s cl aim o f an indep enden t leg al duty (and there fore to “d efend ant’s acti ons,” Davil a , 542 U.S. at 21 0) fo r gui dance .

The m ajori ty’s analo gy tothis Cour t’s p rior holdi ng in Monte fioreon t his p oint is fl awed in tw o respe cts. Firs t, th e pla intif f hea lth s ervic es pr ovide r in Monte fioreclai med t hat t he re levan t ind epend ent l egal duty

arose in quasi- contr act - spec ifica lly, that priorto provi ding servi ces t o eac h ben efici ary u nder the D efend ant -4-Fund’ s Pla n, Mo ntefi ore c alledthe Fund and v erifi ed th at

the p atien t was elig ible and t he an ticip ated servi ces w ere

cover ed, a nd th at th ese v erbal communica tions gave rise to an in depen dent legal dutybetw een M ontef iore and t he Fu nd. Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 3 32. This Courtconc ludedthat these verb al co mmuni catio ns we re in suffi cienton t heir face. Id. Sec ond, and m ost c ritic ally, this Cour t obs ervedin Monte fiorethat“thi s pre -appr oval proce ss wa s exp ressl y requi red b y the term s of the P lan i tself ” andwas there fore “inex trica bly i ntert winedwiththe inter preta tion of Pl an

cover age a nd be nefit s.” Id. The se fa cts s tarkl y con trast with those in t his c ase.

First , Ard iti c laims thatan i ndepe ndentlega l duty arose in t his c ase a s a m atterof p ure c ontra ct la w, citin g the textof h is 20 02 employment a greement w ith Light house whic h sta tes: “Assuming you c ontin ue toworkat the L ighth ouse for a nothe r eig ht ye ars, your age t hen, 59 and y ears of se rvice then , 26, woul d equ al 85 . Atthattime if yo u optto r etire you will recei ve anunre ducedpens ion benef it.” (Gre enber g Dec l., E CF Do c. No . 17- 1, Ex . A a t 2, Ardit i v. Light houseInt’ l , No. 10 C iv. 8 416 ( S.D.N .Y. D ec. -5-10, 2 010) (emph asis added )). Essen tiall y Ard iti a rgues that

this indep enden t und ertak ing b y his empl oyer exemp ted h im from the a dmitt edly validfree zing of th e Pla n app licab le to all o ther Plan parti cipan ts an d con stitu ted aprom ise b y the emplo yer t o mak e up the d iffer ence betwe en th e “un reduc ed pensi on be nefit ” all egedl y pro misedin t he ag reeme nt an d the reduc ed pe nsionbene fit p ayabl e und er th e fro zen P lan. Moreo ver, unlik e in Monte fiore , Lig hthou se wa s und er no speci fic o bliga tion underthe terms of t he Pl an it self to make this separ ate p romis e in Ardit i’s e mployment contr act. Ardit i arg ues o n app eal, consi stentwithour priorhold ing in Steve nson , tha t he is se ekingdama ges f or br each of a promi se ma de se parat ely a nd in depen dentl y fro m the Plan enrol lment , butrefe renci ng it s terms as a be nchma rk fo r calcu latio n.

In re jecti ng Ar diti’ s arg ument s, th e maj ority state s tha t the y mus t fai l bec ause he wa s a p artic ipantin the P lan a nd hi s rig ht toa pe nsionaros e sol ely u nder the Plan. SeeMajo rity Op. a t 13. Thi s goe s toofar. Alt hough Ardit i was a pa rtici pant in th e Pla n andenti tled to re ceive a reduced benef it un der i t, he rais es atleas t a c olora ble -6-claimthathis rightin g enera l to recei ve “a n unr educe d

pensi on be nefit ” upo n ret ireme nt - that is, adiff erent benef it fr om th at pa yable unde r the Plan- ar ises underthe expre ss te rms o f his empl oymen t agr eemen t. T his i s preci sely the s pecie s of claimthis Cour t has alre ady s tated is no t pre empte d by ERISA . See, e.g., Stevenson , 609 F.3d at 61 (“Th e BNYbene fits plans may provi de a benchmark for determinin g cla imed damag es, b ut su ch damages woul d be payab le fr om BN Y’s o wn as sets, not from the p lans thems elves .”). So t oo inthis case . Ar diti’ s Complain t alleg es aninde pende nt co ntrac tual duty to pa y an unreduced pensi on be nefitas acond itionof h is employment w ith Light house “sep arate and apartfromany oblig ation [Ligh thous e] mi ght h ave h ad un der t he Pe nsionPlan .” ( Barr Decl. , Ex. A at8). As t his a llega tion makes clea r, Ar diti is no t mer ely s eekin g a c laim of ri ght u nder the P lan b ut damag es fo r bre ach o f an indep enden t con tract ual o bliga tion, not n ecess arilypaya ble f rom t he Pl an it self but f rom Light house ’s ow n ass ets. This clai m forreli ef is enti rely consi stentwiththis Cour t’s h oldin g in Steve nsonand is no t preempted by ER ISA. -7-The m ajori ty at tempt s to disti nguis h Steve nsonby

point ing t o the factthatStev ensonhad left the e mployof the d efend ant b ank, and t he ba nk ha d non ethel ess p romis ed to “main tain [the plain tiff’ s] be nefit s” un der i ts pe nsionplan

even thoug h pen sion benef iciar ies n ormal ly lo st co verag e upon termi natin g the ir employment. SeeMajo rity Op. a t 15- 16; Steve nson , 609 F.3dat 6 0. B ecaus e the Steve nson plain tiff was e xpres sly n ot anempl oyee and t heref ore n o longe r a memberof t he Pl an, t he ma jorit y arg ues, he ca n estab lish an in depen dent oblig ationthatArdi ti ca nnot. See Major ity Op. at15-1 6. T his c urren t/former e mploy ee disti nctio n is arbit rary and i s notcomp elledby Steve nson itsel f. U nless the major ity i s pre paredto h old t oday that

curre nt employe es en rolle d in ERISA -styl e ben efit plans can

neverdemo nstra te th at th eir e mploy ers h ave m ade t hem a n indep enden t pro mise calcu latedby r efere nce t o an exist ing plan, as i n Steve nson , the n the majo rity is si mply evalu atingthe relat ive s treng th ofthe Steve nsonand Ardit i promi ses when i t say s “th ere i s not hing in th e Agr eemen t that is co mpara ble t o the prom ises made in Steve nson .” See id. at 16 . Ev aluat ing t he st rengt h of Light house ’s pr omise -8-to Ar diti in hi s emp loyme nt ag reeme nt, h oweve r, is of c ourse

a mat ter o f sta te co ntrac t int erpre tatio n rat her t han a matte r of ERISApree mptio n. I t is suffi cientthatArdi ti point s to a con tractouts ide h is en rollment i n the Planand raise s a c olora ble c laim that it es tabli shes an in depen dent legal dutybetw een L ighth ouse and h imsel f. A ctual ly adjud icati ng th at co ntrac t cla im is the provi nce o f the state cour t of compe tent juris dicti on.

Indee d, itis t roubl ing t hat i n rea chingits holdi ng to day, the m ajori ty is forc ed todeci de se veral ultim ate i ssues of c ontra ct in terpr etati on. This Courtis force d to concl ude, for e xampl e, th at th e lan guage in t he emplo ymentagre ementrefe rringto “ reins tatement a s a p lan membe r,” ( Green berg Decl. , Ex. A at2), outwe ighs the langu age s tatin g “[a ]t th at ti me ifyou opt t o ret ire y ou will recei ve anunre ducedpens ion b enefi t,” ( id. ). See Major ity Op. at13-1 5. T he ma jorit y con clude s tha t the emplo ymentagre ementonly“des cribe d the bene fits that Ardit i wou ld ac quire uponhis retur n to the P lan a nd ma de clearthatArdi ti’s benef its a rose from, and were gover ned by, t he te rms o f the Plan .” Id. at 14 . Th e fac t thi s pan el -9-canno t agr ee onwhat , if anyth ing, the e mployment agree ment

“made clea r” wi th re gard to th e pen sion benef it se ems t o cut again st th is ho ldingand speak s to at le ast afactques tion

on co ntrac t int erpre tatio n. M oreov er, i t is clearthatthe major ity h ere a gain views Ardi ti’s enrol lmentin t he Pl an and o ngoin g emp loyme nt wi th Li ghtho use t o be fatal to h is claim , eve n if it do es no t sta te th is insuchpejo rativ e terms . Th at Ar diti is a Plan benef iciar y doe s not , in my view, heig hten his b urdenin r aisin g a c olora ble c laim of an extra -Planinde pende nt le gal duty b ased on “[ D]efe ndant ’s actio ns.” Davil a , 542 U.S. at 2 10. Here, Ardi ti ha s don e

so. That it ma y be less clear -cut than the p romis e at issue in Steve nsonis o f no momen t. Aplai ntiffrais ing a color able indep enden t cla im ofstat e con tractlaw is no t requi red t o pro ve hi s cas e in feder al co urt i n ord er to avoidERIS A pre empti on.

Thus, the major ity h as co llaps ed th e two Davil a prong s int o one : hav ing f ound that Ardit i’s c laim could possi bly h ave b een b rough t as a dir ect c laim for P lan benef its u nder ERISA , it essen tiall y sto ps th ere. The major ity i s onl y abl e to concl ude c ursor ily t hat t he se cond -10-Davil apron g is satis fied by ar bitra rily disti nguis hing

Steve nsonand point ing t o the clea rly d istin guish able facts in Monte fioreas e viden ce th at Ar diti’ s cla im is also “inex trica bly i ntert winedwiththe inter preta tion of Pl an

cover age a nd be nefit s.” Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 3 32. Ironi cally , it was i n Monte fiorethatthis Cour t exp ressl y

warne d of the d angerof c onfus ing t he tw o Davil apron gs in this way: [I]n situa tions in which a par ty se eks

reman d to a sta te co urt, it [i s] ea sy to overl ook t he di stinc tion betwe en a claim (1) b rough t sol ely p ursua nt toan indep enden t dut y tha t has noth ing t o do with ERISA , anda cl aim which (2) c ould have been broug ht un der E RISA, but also rests on “ [an]o ther indep enden t leg al duty that is implica ted b y [th e] defen dant' s act ions. ” The former fa ils t o satis fy th e fir st pr ong o f Davil abeca use it do es no t sta te a “colo rable clai m” fo r benef its, Fires tone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch , 489 U.S. 101, 117- 18 (1 989), and there fore couldnot have been broug ht underERIS A, an d the latt er fa ils t o satis fy th e sec ond p rong of Davil a. Davil a , 542 U.S. at 2 10. Monte fiore , 642 F.3dat 3 28. It is for this reaso n tha t the fact that Ardit i fir st st yled his a ctionas o ne fo r ben efits

-11-underthe Plan is no t rel evantto o ur de cisio n tod ay. See ,

e.g. , Maj orityOp. at 6- 7.

For t hese reaso ns, I resp ectfu lly d issen t.

-12-