Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020110808872
Timestamp: 2014-10-31 06:10:00
Document Index: 765550830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1002', '§ 1002', '§ 1104', '§ 1104', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 502', '§ 1085', '§ 1002']

McGUIGAN v. LOCAL 295/LOCAL 851 I.B.T. EMPLOYER GROUP PENSION PLAN | Leagle.com Home
Citing Case McGUIGAN v. LOCAL 295/LOCAL 851 I.B.T. EMPLOYER GROUP PENSION PLAN
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, New York, By: Donald Havermann and Melissa D. Hill, Attorneys for Defendants.
1. McGuigan also names "Local 295/Local 851 I.B.T. Employer Group Pension Plan" as a defendant in this action. There is some ambiguity as to the relationship between that pension plan and the other named defendant, Local 295/Local 851 I.B.T. Employer Group Pension Trust Fund. Ex. 2 to Declaration of Melissa D. Hill (June 10, 2011), at 1 & 10 (using the two foregoing names interchangeably to refer to McGuigan's pension plan); International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 295 (last visited Aug. 1, 2011), http://local295.com/node/7 (listing only "Employer Group Pension Trust Fund" and "Employer Group Welfare Fund" as the funds available to members of Local 295/Local 851). Because resolution of this issue is not material to my decision on the instant motion, I follow McGuigan's convention of referring to "Defendants" in the plural form, and I refer to the pension plan in question as the "Plan" throughout this opinion.
3. The Plan qualifies as both an employee pension benefit plan and a multiemployer plan, as defined by subsections 3(2)(A) and 3(37) of ERISA, respectively. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A) (defining "employee pension benefit plan" as "any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that by its express terms or as a result of surrounding circumstances such plan, fund, or program . . . provides retirement income to employees"); § 1002(37) (defining "multiemployer plan" as "a plan . . . to which more than one employer is required to contribute .. . [and] which is maintained pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements between one or more employee organizations and more than one employer").
4. "Section 404 of ERISA imposes fiduciary duties on administrators of ERISA retirement plans that, in pertinent part, require a fiduciary to `discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries . . . for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.'" , 73 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)). "The statute also mandates that fiduciaries discharge their duties `with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use. . . .'" (quoting § 1104(a)(1)).
6. The Court also explained that not all relief in the form of a money payment is categorically unavailable in § 502(a)(3) actions; a plaintiff proceeding pursuant to that section may, for example, seek a "surcharge remedy" for a "loss resulting from a trustee's breach of duty, or to prevent the trustee's unjust enrichment." , 1880 (2011). Restitution of ill-gotten plan assets or profits also qualifies as "equitable relief" under § 502(a)(3). , 256, 260 (1993).
7. As the Second Circuit stated in the "threshold question in `every case charging breach of ERISA fiduciary duty' is `not whether the actions of some person employed to provide services under a plan adversely affected a plan beneficiary's interest, but whether that person was acting as a fiduciary (that is, was performing a fiduciary function) when taking the action subject to complaint.'" , 73 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting , 226 (2000)). I assume for purposes of analyzing McGuigan's § 502(a)(3) claim that this threshold question has been resolved in his favor, given that the claim appears to implicate the Plan's board of trustees in a fiduciary function. However, as discussed more fully Defendants persuasively contend that one of several reasons for dismissing this action is McGuigan's failure to name the proper plan fiduciary, the board of trustees, as a defendant.
8. Congress passed the PPA in large part to address the declining financial health of single- and multiemployer pension plans across the country. Mary Williams Walsh, "Trying To Clear Fog from Pension Plans," (Feb. 3, 2008). For this purpose, the PPA added new pension plan funding requirements to ERISA.
9. A multiemployer plan is in critical status for a given year if, as determined by the plan actuary pursuant to the provisions of the PPA, the condition of the plan falls within one or more of four categories delineated in the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(2). The Plan in the instant action qualifies as a multiemployer plan under ERISA because it provides pension and retirement benefits to employees of more than one employer pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between the employers and one or more employee organizations. § 1002(37)(A). McGuigan does not contend otherwise.
15. For the first time at oral argument, McGuigan's counsel asserted an additional claim that Defendants had arbitrarily and capriciously declined to tip him off to the May 20, 2009 cut-off date while making sure to tip off other Plan participants who were "insiders" with their employers or with Defendants' representatives. Putting aside whether these bare allegations could suffice to state a claim for a "class of one" equal protection violation, , 564 (2000) (citing , 445 (1923)), I reject the claim on the ground that the requisite state action is indisputably missing here.
16. Plan participants were directed to contact the Trust Fund with questions regarding the June 2009 Notice. Ex. 2 to Hill Decl., at 12. Nevertheless, Defendants argue that McGuigan was required to name "the Defendants' joint board of trustees," which served as the plan sponsor, as a defendant in order to pursue his claims based on violations of the PPA's notice requirements. Defendants' Br. at 15.