Document: 534 U.S. 204122 S.Ct. 708151 L.Ed.2d 635 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., PETITIONERSv.JANETTE KNUDSON and ERIC No. 99-1786. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued October 1, 2001Decided January 8, 2002 Syllabus When respondent Janette Knudson was injured a car accident, health plan (Plan) petitioner Earth Systems, Inc., employer Janette's then-husband, Eric Knudson, covered $411,157.11 her medical expenses, most which paid by Great-West Life Annuity Insurance Co. The Plan's reimbursement provision gives it right recover from beneficiary payment for benefits Plan entitled third party. A separate agreement assigns rights claim. After Knudsons filed state-court tort action manufacturer their others, they negotiated settlement allocated bulk recovery attorney's fees trust care, earmarked $13,828.70 (the portion attributable past expenses) satisfy Great-West's Approving settlement, state court ordered defendants pay amount directly remainder respondents' attorney, who, turn, would tender checks creditors. Instead cashing its check, this federal under §502(a)(3) Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA) enforce requiring proceeds recovered parties. District granted summary judgment, holding terms limited determined court. Ninth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, judicially decreed payments an insurance party not "equitable relief" authorized §502(a)(3). Held: Because petitioners seeking legal relief imposition personal liability respondents contractual obligation money does authorize action. Pp. 4-17. (a) Under authorizes civil "to enjoin act practice violates plan, obtain appropriate equitable term refers those categories were typically available equity. Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 248 , 256. Here, seek, essence, impose equity, but classic form relief. Id., at 255. Petitioners' Government's efforts characterize sought as "equitable" persuasive. 4-5. (b) rejects petitioners' argument §502(a)(3)(A) because seek a[n] practice" failure reimburse "which [plan's] terms." An injunction compel due contract, specific performance monetary obligation, Those rare cases equity decree contract transfer funds suits that, unlike present case, prevent future losses either incalculable greater than sum awarded. Bowen Massachusetts, 487 879 distinguished. 5-7. (c) Also rejected suit §502(a)(3)(B) restitution, Restitution remedy when case law whether depends basis plaintiff's claim nature underlying remedies sought. For restitution lie generally must defendant, restore plaintiff particular property defendant's possession. hold good conscience, belong petitioners, contractually some conferred. kind therefore, equitable, legal. Mertens, supra, 256, Harris Trust Sav. Bank Salomon Smith Barney 530 238 253, 7-14. (d) Finally, common trusts provides with allow them bring Such simply inapposite, see and, event, do give trustee cause moneys beneficiary's interest trust. 14-15. 208 F.3d 221, affirmed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Scalia, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, JJ., joined. Opinion Justice Scalia Court. 1 question presented (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3) (1994 ed.), ERISA plan. 2 * Respondent rendered quadriplegic accident June 1992. employed Health Welfare Employees Dependents Inc. (Plan). all except $75,000 pursuant "stop-loss" Plan. 3 includes lawsuit. shall have "the [beneficiary] benefits" App. 58. Specifically, has "a first lien upon recovery, judgment otherwise," receives party, exceed [by Plan] [or] received such treatment ." 58-59. If recovers fails Plan, "then he will personally liable [the up lien." 59. Pursuant between Great-West, "assign[ed] make, litigate, negotiate, settle, compromise, release waive" provision. 45. 4 In late 1993, California Hyundai Motor Company, riding time alleged tortfeasors. parties $650,000 notice mailed Great-West. $256,745.30 Special Needs Cal. Prob. Code Ann. §3611 (West 1991 Supp. 1993) provide care; $373,426 costs; $5,000 Medicaid program (Medi-Cal); 5 day hearing scheduled judicial approval calling itself defendant asserting involved claims related ERISA, Central removal 28 1441 ed.). That concluded could remove therefore remanded court, approved settlement. court's provided trust, remaining amounts Medi-Cal 6 however, never cashed check attorney. Instead, same state-law action, California), injunctive declaratory subsequently amended complaint adding Systems plaintiffs temporary restraining against continuation proceedings denied order, ruling did appeal. disbursed, Knudsons. It held language treatment, $13,828.70. Appeals grounds. Judgt. reported 221 (2000). Citing FMC Medical Owens, 122 1258 (CA9 1997), We certiorari. 531 1124 (2001). II 7 observed repeatedly " 'comprehensive reticulated statute,' product decade congressional study Nation's private employee benefit system." 251 (1993) (quoting Nachman Corp. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 359 361 (1980)). been especially "reluctant tamper [the] enforcement scheme" embodied statute extending specifically text. Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Russell, 473 134 147 (1985). Indeed, we noted ERISA's "carefully crafted detailed scheme 'strong evidence Congress intend forgot incorporate expressly.' 254 146-147). 8 Section 502(a)(3) action: 9 "by participant, beneficiary, fiduciary (A) (B) (i) redress violations (ii) provisions plan." 10 As explained '[e]quitable' mean something less relief." U.S., 258, n. 8. Thus, reading extend obtainable whatever empowered issue (which include otherwise beyond scope authority). reading, said, "limit all" "render modifier ['equitable'] superfluous." 257-258. refer "those 11 "A owing 'quintessentially law.' Wal-Mart Stores, Wells, 213 398, 401 (CA7 2000) (Posner, J.). "Almost invariably (whether injunction, declaration) 'money damages,' phrase traditionally applied, since no more compensation loss resulting breach duty." 918-919 (1988) (Scalia, dissenting). And "[m]oney damages are, course, 12 Nevertheless, along amicus struggle standard set Mertens. persuaded. 13 First, argue But equity.1 See, e.g., Restatement (Second) Contracts §359 (1979); Dobbs §12.8(2), 199; 5A A. Corbin, §1142, p. 119 (1964) (hereinafter Corbin). example, might lend "when unavailability alternative financing leave injuries difficult value; obligor's duty make monthly payments, after obligor had consistently refused concededly due, thus threatened obligee burden bringing multiple actions." Bowen, 918 See also 200; Corbin 117-118. Typically, 14 rely, contrary. Administrative Procedure precludes actions "money damages" agencies, 702 bar State entitlement statute, 42 1396b ed. V). "did turn distinctions 'equitable' rather [on] what meant 'other damages' Act. Department Army Blue Fox, 525 255 261 (1999). Furthermore, claim, deal sums. Rather, claimed Federal Government only failed expenses statutory method used calculate reimbursements lead underpayments future. merely sums, correct calculating going forward. 889. bearing due. B 15 Second, However, falling rubric days divided bench, certain law, others §1.2, 11; id., §4.1(1), 556; §4.1(3), 564-565; §§4.2-4.3, 570-624; §1102, 550; Muir, Remedies: Chimera Congressional Compromise?, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 36-37 (1995); Redish, Seventh Amendment Right Jury Trial: Study Irrationality Rational Decision Making, 70 Nw. U. 486, 528 (1975). "restitution case," plaintiff's] claim" Reich Continental Casualty Co., 33 754, 756 1994) 16 "could assert title possession property, nevertheless able show just grounds recovering him," through derived writ assumpsit. §4.2(1), 571. 37. cases, considered imposing money." §160, Comment a, pp. 641-642 (1936). viewed essentially actual implied). 17 contrast, ordinarily constructive lien, where identified belonging conscience clearly traced §4.3(1), 587-588; Restitution, 641-642; G. Palmer, Law §1.4, 17; §3.7, 262 (1978). then (in trust) security lien) who was, eyes true owner. [sought recovered] dissipated so remains, general creditor," "cannot [defendant]." §215, 867. possession.2 18 approving makes clear, disbursements two checks, one payable attorney (who, deducting his own costs, placed client account tendered creditors, Medi-Cal). conferred respondents. 19 Admittedly, our previously drawn fine distinction neither relevant. mentioned dicta "injunction, mandamus, restitution" 256 (emphasis added). involve all; rather, addressed nonfiduciary knowingly participates imposed compensatory damages. 249-250. courts commentators noted, "all [Supreme] [in cases] contrast damages, commonly sense though occasionally awarded not." 756. purport change well-settled principle "not exclusively remedy," (and hence §502(a)(3)) remains dependent Ibid. Rev., 36 (analyzing explaining "only 502(a)(3)"). 20 Likewise, (2000), "an transferee tainted assets" "appropriate within meaning 253. While expressly distinguish described (or proceeds) accords describe today. 250 ("The beneficiaries maintain (if already disposed of) disgorgement added)); 250-251 ("Whenever obtained means circumstances 'which render unconscientious holder retain enjoy beneficial interest, impresses con-structive acquired favor truly equitably added) (internal quotation marks citations omitted)). 21 Ginsburg's dissent finds dispositive restitutionary view, touchstone distinguishing "substance requested," post, "substantive" is, she concludes, doubtful, begin with, "restitution" least defined broadly enough embrace forms pertains substance theory "substance" compelled money; thought identify type (rather awarded) if limit return identifiable property) 22 approach, looks conditions attached provision, logically leads untenable conclusion reached Stevens's §502(a)(3)(A)'s explicit authorization identifies relief, permits (what permit) simple indebtedness or, matter, punitive problem conclusion, renders statute's limitation "[injunction] . utterly pointless. easy disparage law-equity dichotomy ancient classification," (opinion Ginsburg, J.), "obsolete distinctio[n]," Stevens, Like not, classification specified statute; there way specification indeed, unmistakable adverting differences refers. dissents greatly exaggerate, moreover, difficulty task. felt comfortable referring many others3 precisely basic contours well known. Rarely need "antiquarian inquiry," consulting, done, current works Dobbs, Restatements, answer clear. inquiry, accustomed pursuing, always pursue, contexts. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 308 318 (1999) (powers Judiciary Act's grant jurisdiction over equity"); Curtis Loether, 415 189 192 (1974) (scope jury trial "[i]n law"). What introduce high degree confusion into use lawyers' understanding) "equity" rolling content contemplated dissents. 23 Stevens "difficult understand why wanted recourse violation disclosed record 2- 3. job find reasons plainly done; avoid rendering done (here, relief) devoid reason effect. If, Ginsburg surmises, 9, rule out nothing "compensatory damages," said that. achieve result subtle reliance dissenters' novel expansive view implausible. 24 Respecting Congress's choice requires us recognize difference restitution.4 former, C 25 Third, amicus, argues Analogizing repay advance Brief Amicus Curiae 17-19 (citing Trusts §§252, (1959) Trusts)). These inapposite. special equity-court powers applicable define reach cited sections Restatement, terms, charge capture owed. §252 ("If contracts part estate payment, liability"); §255 loan repayment advanced lent"). setoff moneys. III 26 end, ask interpret "from being deprived inconsistent primary purpose ERISA," namely, Petitioners 30-31. note, necessary decision, seek. express intervened brought direct pre-empted ERISA. Nor decide Trust, appeal Court's denial motion amend add these individuals codefendants. 27 issues because, "[e]ven assuming about pre-emption actions" lack "vague notions 'basic purpose' nonetheless inadequate overcome words text regarding consideration." 261. very section §502(a)(3), participant beneficiary" plan," without reference equitable. (a)(1)(B) fiduciaries. allows attempt adjust adopted.5 254. Accordingly, affirm Appeals. ordered. dissenting opinion. 30 opinion, Souter, Breyer, Notes At oral argument, counsel argued brief, conceded "other suggests [a] plan" itself, 15, inherently remedy, see, 1994); Remedies (2d Dobbs), must, absent indication, deemed contain limitations availability imposes. Without construction, meaningless, can, lawyerly inventiveness, phrased injunction. contrary positive indication paragraph referred There exception accounting profits, case. profits produced even cannot res containing recovered. 588; §4.3(5), 608. any) support Westlaw search discloses appears 77 Code. intended asserts treated backpay, restitution," 7, purposes Title VII Civil Rights 1964. authorities proposition backpay 197 (1974), Teamsters Terry, 494 558 572 (1990). notable, say restitutionary, Curtis, fact, explicitly refuses so. ("Whatever merit characterization [of backpay] (footnote while "we characterized restitutionary," 570, not) "treated [backpay] equitable" VII, narrow allowed together relief: "[T]he affirmative appropriate, include, to, reinstatement hiring employees, back deems appropriate." 2000e 5(g)(1) referent "back pay," relevant here, "treated" "reinstatement employees," modified "with pay." recognized appeals §2000e integral 197. Grayson Wickes Corp., 607 F.2d 1194, 1196 1979) (Title reinstatement"); Harmon May Broadcasting 583 410, 411 (CA8 1978) (same); Slack Havens, 522 1091, 1094 1975) Johnson Georgia Highway Express, 417 1122, 1125 (CA5 1969) (same). statement Terry relies "Congress 'equitable relief',' inaccurate unless understood "specifically" remedy. discussion requires, reinforced immediately following citation called 572. here freestanding Varity Howe, 516 489 (1996), 'catchall' provisio[n]" "act[s] safety net, offering caused §502 elsewhere adequately remedy." 512. lawsuits individualized obligations, notwithstanding petitioner's "appropriate" §502(a)(2) §409 address preclude 507-515. undisputed light apparent remedies. 508. hold, urge conclude today, catchall consistent elsewhere. To accept ignore plain fiduciaries 31 dissenting. 32 lucid dissent, I join, fanciful assume revive obsolete defining (ERISA). She convincingly permissible favored test determining qualifies postscript am persuaded word "enjoin," §502(a)(3)(A), prohibits terminates regardless precedent can found English Chancery cases. read "other" having enlarge, judge's remedial authority. Consequently, (1993), placing authority nor shackle analysis constitutes sort historical chosen. 34 inquiry now entails "typically equity." mean, inquiries analysis, seems believe, ante, 5. task §502(a)(3)(B), enjoin" §502(a)(3)(A). result, tradition unnecessary respect Moreover, proper 35 Not inclusive consonant accomplishes Congress' goal providing plans governed Contrary reluctance wrongs should remedied,1 believe historic presumption favoring rights2 inform construction statutes. me Cf., 512-513, 515 (1996) ("We aware ERISA-related serve"). unsurprising contains Absent discussion, remarkably unpersuasive.3 37 respectfully dissent. Correctional Services Malesko, __ (2001) (Stevens, dissenting); Alexander Sandoval, 532 275 294 297 Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388 392 (1971) (" '[W]here federally protected invaded, beginning alert relief' Bell Hood, 327 678 684 (1946)); 397 'The essence liberty certainly consists every individual protection laws, whenever injury' Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 163 (1803)). response echoes Tennyson's poem Light Brigade "Theirs why, Theirs die" states done," 13. Congress, power enact unreasonable laws. instead blind obedience blush think both prudent respectful pause 38 whom Breyer 39 Today's holding, majority declares, "Congress's §502(a)(3)." Ante, placement signaled intent exhume "fine distinction[s]" borne "days bench," 10; treat unrelated sought; obstruct goals relegating all) array involving interpretation provisions. "choice," 40 purports resolve "nature seeks. 10. opinion's trains question, subsidiary, disputed bench." 7-11 (inquiring akin common-law assumpsit" resembles assets "lie equity"). scrutinizes contrasts features technical requirements once jurisdictional divide premerger courts. Finding clear match side line, concludes outside jurisdiction. 41 rarified rules rigid time-bound conception hardly fingertips enacted By 1974, became bench" fading memory, era ended nearly years earlier advent Rules Procedure. instruct: "There action" cognizable Rule Civ. Proc. 2. Except preserve established merger, 195 ( trial), doctrinal delineating boundaries receded. Wright Miller, Practice §1041, 135 (1987); Wright, Handbook Courts §67, 282 1970) ("[I]nstances old continue graves quite rare."). attribute members 93d familiarity "needless distinctions," 131, much deliberate "choice" resurrect import wholesale modern regulatory laid "[T]here suggest drafters embed work warp." Cost Controls Ill. 187 703, 711 1999) J.); cf. 257, (meaning based enacted"). 43 strap anachronistic corroborated anomalous results supposed legislative leads. Although recognizes issue, 15-16, surely contemplates lie; hence, outcome sued "possession" funds, Knudsons, not. 8-9 (constructive unavailable possession"). entirely designation ordering wrongfully withheld identical fact Unlike today's majority, resist "rule unjustified reason, produces breaches situations differentiated policy." Moragne Marine Lines, 398 375 405 (1970). 44 procedural history highlights anomaly upholding supports,1 protract perhaps resolution nub controversy i.e., recoupment call for. named Janet Knudson's approved. picture. Seeking status quo, stop disposing settle Only approve of, into, Trust. moved consideration merits. Had ruled differently peripheral presumably reverse disposition left limbo so, decision rests interlocutory moot final involved, seemed inconsequential post day. 45 majority's avowed further belied conflict stated enacting unable fit confines constructs barred forum; like Many precluded antisubrogation Maryland HMO Subrogation Plaintiffs Amici 4-5, 2, preempted survive produce diverse potentially contradictory interpretations terms. 46 establish uniform administrative ensure enforced free threat conflicting local regulation." Fort Halifax Packing Coyne, 482 (1987) omitted) 120 Cong. Rec. 29933 (1974)). frustrates ascribing paradoxical thwarts part. doubt 261) deleted). starkly conflicts questionable inferences single latter, way. 47 particularly ironic acts name sacrifices archaic unyielding doctrine. "Equity eschews mechanical rules; flexibility." Holmberg Armbrecht, 396 (1946). "[a]s long ago recognized, 'there inherent Equity effect policy legislature.' Mitchell Robert DeMario Jewelry, 288 291-292 (1960) Clark Smith, Pet. 195, 203 (1839)); Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 (1975) ("[W]hen invokes Chancellor's transcendent purposes, required principled application standards purposes."); 336 (Ginsburg, dissenting) (Court similarly "relie[d] unjustifiably static jurisdiction"). 48 Unprepared agree chose infuse recondite relies, accord "equitable." Consistent likely look character seeks category fully meeting measure law. oust 49 requests dispute. operate rightful (describing award "requir[e] disgorge plaintiff"); Porter Warner Holding 328 395 402 (1946) (restitution encompasses "ordering rightfully belongs to" plaintiff). alleges unjustly enriched permitted funds. §4.1(2), 557 fundamental substantive receiving something, tangible intangible, properly plaintiff."). representing Knudsons' unjust gain, loss. §12.1(1), ("Restitutionary recoveries loss."). 50 admit, 10, mentioning, dwelling upon, classifications rests. Tull 481 412 424 "traditionally remedy"); "remedy "); 570 (1990) ("[W]e [money] restitutionary."); Mitchell, 291-293 (District exercise Fair Labor Standards restitution); Moses Macferlan, Burr. 1005, 1012, 97 Eng. Rep. 676, 681 (K. B. 1760) ("In word, gist obliged ties natural justice refund money."). dispute: "within highest Porter, 402. 51 More important, one's concern follow Legislature's will, substantially similar here. 1964 instruction Act, award, inter alia, relief," including Interpreting 197; 572, relief,' ibid. VII's 255; remarkable inconsistency, "Title 14, 4. inexplicably offer "recover[y of] omitted), encompass VII) earlier.2 52 [was] equity," added); termed "legal," affects core interpreted "categories original), fits bill. insisting embraces chancery times yore, labors position close embraced today; memories refinements, recede past, [an keyed case] becomes, perhaps, increasingly unlikely." 256-257. 53 My objection today adopts spite th[e] task," 12. sure, confidence ability works" "make clear"; indicate prevails, conflict, key points, compare comment e, 645 (1936) procured abuse relation inadequate), §4.3(2), 595, 597 (limitation "misdealings fiduciaries" "misconception"; adequacy "seems irrelevant"). preferred indeed apply," Ross Bernhard, 538, (1970), 54 "may seem reek unduly study," Damsky Zavatt, 289 46, (CA2 1961) (Friendly, 'if museum,' 59 (Clark, 55 Even chosen texts yielded quick answer, implausible controlling doctrine describe. 2-6. Our context 1789, 12, underscores incongruity applying arguable "preserving" founding-era determine tribunal entertained 18th-century England. Mexicano, 318-319; 593 (Kennedy, existing 1791 it."). rationale conceivably justifies asking arising distinctly passed 1974. 56 depend signify "rolling content," 13, recognition characteristically, remain evolving dynamic jurisprudence, 337 Cf. 257 ("[I]t each [Congress] intended" impart relief."). realm reaffirmed: "Principles taught, introduced Lord Chancellors deputies inflexibility rules." Medforth Blake, [1999] All E. R. 97, 110 (C. A.); Boulting Association Cinematograph, Television Allied Technicians, [1963] Q. 606, 636 A.) ("[A]ll [are] flexible, [they] develo[p] meet changing time."); Pettkus Becker, [1980] 834, 847, 117 (3d) 273 great advantage principles flexibility: judiciary shape malleable accommodate needs mores society."). equation frozen bygone era, maintain, "unjustifiabl[e]" applied grounded era. insistence senseless. 57 engage antiquarian attempts question. "utterly pointless," fears, confine significantly "less 8). Most notably, exclude 255, which, "though equity" "clean doctrine," 1994), Symons, Pomeroy's Jurisprudence §181, (5th 1941). large "unmistakable." sum, adopt faithful Mertens: "refer[s] (such damages)." 58 needlessly obscures complicates embroils "recondite controversies better historians," 576 (Brennan, concurring judgment), yields demonstrably odds my plausibly crafted" confusion, 16, recoup paid, resolved favor. Circuit, review situation. defended Motion Dismiss Improvidently Granted appointed curiae Circuit's judgment. 917 Both brief commendably developed adopts. aligned behind that" "integral part" reinstatement. rationale, adopted denies: "therefore equitable," EEOC Detroit Edison 301, (CA6 ("Back Since pay."), vacated 431 951 (1977); Rogers 467 1110, 1121 1972) ("It regard [under VII] chancellor's require restitution. remedy.") aff'd, (1974). Hubbard EPA, 949 453, 462 (CADC 1991) ("Courts awards number Generally, decisions thing illegal action; seen reflect restitution."), aff'd 982 1992) (en banc). 60 (1990), relief.' (Emphasis somewhat ambiguous Appeals, reasoning restitution." spoke clarity 570-571, "exception rule" legal, situations: "where th[e is] suggested fall, ("backpay nature"); [is] 'incidental intertwined 571 (1987)).

Category: 7