Opinion ID: 613087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: plaintiffs' federal common claim for unjust enrichment

Text: Plaintiffs contend that they have also alleged unjust enrichment under the federal common law of ERISA in three ways: (1) as an ERISA fiduciary, (2) as an employer, and (3) as an ERISA plan. Defendants contest this, arguing that [p]laintiffs cannot obtain relief through a common law action for unjust enrichment under ERISA because ERISA § 502(a)(3) specifically forecloses their action for equitable relief. Because we find that neither ERISA nor the Plan at issue was violated, however, there is no gap involving ERISA and this suit involves claims that are beyond ERISA's reach. See N. Am. Coal Corp. Ret. Sav. Plan v. Roth, 395 F.3d 916, 917 (8th Cir.2005) ([B]ecause there is no gap in ERISA's text regarding a fiduciary's right to bring a civil action for legal remedies to enforce plan terms or ERISA provisions, a federal common law remedy cannot be recognized.). It is true that, in interpreting the provisions of ERISA, federal courts are charged with the responsibility of fashioning a federal common law `to deal with issues involving rights and obligations under private welfare and pension plans.' Buckley Dement, Inc. v. Travelers Plan Adm'rs. of Ill., Inc., 39 F.3d 784, 789 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 24 n. 26, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983)). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has observed repeatedly that ERISA is a `comprehensive and reticulated statute, the product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation's private employee benefit system.' Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 251, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993)). The Court has therefore been especially `reluctant to tamper with [the] enforcement scheme' embodied in the statute by extending remedies not specifically authorized by its text. Knudson, 534 U.S. at 209, 122 S.Ct. 708 (quoting Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 147, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985)). Indeed ERISA's `carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme provides strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.' Knudson, 534 U.S. at 209, 122 S.Ct. 708 (quoting, Mertens, 508 U.S. at 254, 113 S.Ct. 2063). Here, because the rights and obligations under the Plan are not at issue, i.e., there is no dispute that K.G. was not a Covered Person under the Plan, there is no need to interpret the provisions of ERISA and develop federal common law under ERISA. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' federal common law claim for unjust enrichment is affirmed.