Opinion ID: 75971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: riccard iii

Text: 11 In October 1999, Riccard filed his third lawsuit against Prudential, alleging, among other things, fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit in the denial of certain disability and medical benefits in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In a second amended complaint he restyled his claim as one for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the denial of benefits due under his health plans and for the recovery of the benefits due under his plans. He filed a third amended complaint to allege that Prudential's fraudulent misrepresentation of its NASD membership status had caused him to improperly agree to arbitrate his claims in Riccard I, and also to allege further [a]ge discrimination, [d]isability discrimination, and [r]etaliation by Prudential against Riccard for filing the two earlier lawsuits against it. 12 After Riccard filed that third amended complaint, Prudential moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss, among others, the fraudulent misrepresentation count. The district court granted the motion, determining as a matter of law that Riccard could not establish that he had detrimentally relied on any misrepresentation by Prudential of its NASD membership status. 13 When the district court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation count, it also dismissed the further retaliation and discrimination count without prejudice and directed Riccard to file a fourth amended complaint in greater detail, clearly asserting the acts that qualify as statutorily protected activity and adverse employment actions, as well as the dates on which these acts (and any acts related to them) occurred. Riccard did file a fourth amended complaint which dropped the further discrimination claim and re-pleaded the retaliation claim in greater detail. Shortly thereafter, the district court stayed discovery in the case. Riccard filed a motion to reconsider the discovery stay, which the court denied. The district court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Prudential pursuant to Rule 12(c), and it dismissed the restyled further retaliation claim in the fourth amended complaint. 14 Riccard timely appealed the judgment the district court entered against him in his third lawsuit.