Court Opinion

ID: 9470354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:03:27.611141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:51.167562
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the following reason:
1. Suits under 29 USC § 186 against fiduciaries of union trust funds established for benefits of employees have been held to justify damage awards as well as equitable *580relief to cure past violations or to declare rights effective in the future. Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, 623 F.2d 196, 202-204 (2d Cir.1980); Agro v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, 623 F.2d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1980). Suits such as this one, alleging arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits and wrongful breach of fiduciary duties may constitute allegation of a “structural” defect in a pension plan such as to bring about jurisdiction under § 186(c) or § 186(e). See Valle, fn. 8, p. 201.1
2. The original complaint, at the time of its filing, contained a good faith claim that asserted an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000. The claim was not a merely colorable one from examination of the complaint itself and based on what the appellant and appellant’s attorney knew at the time of filing. See Worthams v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co., 533 F.2d 994 (6th Cir.1976). That the claim may have dropped below $10,000 by application of a defense, or concession by appellee that appellant was entitled to part of the claim, should not bar jurisdiction had diversity of citizenship been clearly stated as a basis of the initial proceeding in federal court. As stated in Miller v. Davis, 507 F.2d 308, 311 (6th Cir.1974), in a prior stage of this longstanding case, however, “[defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms in the trial or appellate courts.” In this case, I am persuaded that equitable considerations should allow the amendment and its relation back to the time of original filing as a basis of diversity jurisdiction to avoid a dismissal on technical grounds. Miller v. Davis, 507 F.2d 308, 311.
I would, accordingly, reverse the decision of the district court granting appellee’s motion to dismiss under these circumstances.

. Appellant, therefore, under liberal construction of the pleadings, did state a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 186.