Opinion ID: 736207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Weinstein's Procedural Challenges to the Action

Text: 9 Weinstein contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the present action because ERISA does not give a plan administrator standing to bring suit. This contention is meritless. 10 Section 502(e)(1) of ERISA grants the district courts jurisdiction to hear civil actions under the Act brought by, inter alios, an employee pension plan's fiduciary. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Section 3(21)(A)(iii) of ERISA defines a fiduciary to include a person who has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of [an employee benefit] plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(iii); see also id. § 1002(21)(A)(i) (fiduciary includes one who exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of [an employee benefit] plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets). Regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor interpreting ERISA make clear that the administrator and trustees of a pension plan are fiduciaries within the meaning of the statute, for a plan administrator or a trustee of a plan must, b[y] the very nature of his position, have 'discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration' of the plan within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(iii).... 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8 D-3 (1996). Accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit brought by, inter alios, Foss as the Plan's administrator. 11 Nor is there merit in Weinstein's contention that the complaint fails to state a claim. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA provides, inter alia, that a fiduciary may bring a civil action to obtain ... appropriate equitable relief ... to enforce any provisions of this subchapter. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). The Administrators' request for equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that ERISA § 104(b)(4) does not require disclosure of the actuarial valuation reports demanded by Weinstein constituted a request for the enforcement of that section in accordance with plaintiffs' interpretation of its scope.