Opinion ID: 2696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strom's 2000 Lawsuit

Text: In 2000, Strom requested certain documents from SFP relating to its Profit Plan and Cash Plan. In an August 2, 2000 letter, SFP informed Strom that it was in the process of computing her benefits under the Profit Plan and that, [a]s you know, you are not a participant in the [Cash Plan] as you were neither a shareholder, nor an officer of Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. The letter did not indicate which provisions of the Cash Plan were being interpreted, or why the fact that Strom was not a shareholder or officer of SFP rendered her ineligible for any benefits under the terms of the Cash Plan or its operative amendments. On August 7, 2000, Strom and Schroder filed an ERISA action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mishler, J.), against SFP, as well as Siegel and Peddy. In that action  which is not before us in the present appeal  Strom claimed entitlement to benefits under both the Profit Plan and the Cash Plan. The district court did not reach the merits, however, but rather dismissed Strom's complaint on December 7, 2000, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court also rejected Strom's argument that SFP had denied her effective access to the administrative remedies provided under the relevant Plans, but nonetheless granted Strom the opportunity to file requests for review of [her Profit Plan and Cash Plan claims] on or before December 18, 2000. By letters dated January 8, 2001, January 17, 2001, and April 25, 2001, Strom submitted to SFP a claim for benefits under both the Profit Plan and the Cash Plan. Even though these letters came after the December 18, 2000 deadline set by the district court, SFP considered the claims on the merits.