Grosso v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan
| Decision Date | 13 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 6448 (LGS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
| Parties | VINCENT GROSSO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, et al., Defendants |
AMENDED ORDER AND OPINION
On May 25, 2021, the Court reviewed the BPC's decision and issued an Opinion and Order (the “Second Opinion”) granting Defendants' second motion for summary judgment. See Grosso v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, No. 18 Civ. 6448, 2021 WL 2115210 . On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the Court review the BPC's finding in the Second BPC Denial that adequate notice was given to Plaintiffs. On October 6, 2021 Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the Second Opinion based on purported intervening controlling authority. For the following reasons, both motions are denied.
Familiarity with the facts is assumed. All capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as in the prior summary judgment decisions. See Grosso v. AT&T Pension Benefits Plan, No. 18 Civ. 6448, 2019 WL 4805809 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019); Grosso, 2021 WL 2115210.
On December 3, 2018, the BPC issued the Second BPC Denial, in which it interpreted the 1998 Plan as follows: First, to receive unreduced pension benefits after reaching fifty-five years of age but before attaining Normal Retirement Age employees were required to submit a written application. Second, if a participant failed to apply for unreduced benefits, the participant might nevertheless be entitled to retroactive benefits if the participant did not receive notice of the availability of such benefits.
The Second BPC Denial also found that both Plaintiffs Grosso and Wing had received (1) the April 28, 1997, Letter & Fact Sheet (the “April 1997 Notice”), (2) the Termination and Related Notice (dated July 3, 1997, and June 13, 1997, for Grosso and Wing, respectively) and (3) the August 1997, Your Pension Improvements Booklet (the three documents, collectively, the “Notice Letters”). The BPC further found that Grosso was provided notice by an April 30, 2013, Letter and that Grosso's recorded call to Fidelity Service Center Website confirms his receipt of that letter.
The BPC denied Grosso's claim for benefits retroactive to age fifty-five, finding that he had not filed a written application and had been provided adequate notice. The BPC partially granted Wing's claim for benefits retroactive to April 1, 2014, because Wing had been given erroneous information about her pension benefits when she contacted the Fidelity Service Center in March 2014. Wing still seeks benefits for the period between May 1, 2012, when she turned fifty-five, and April 1, 2014.
Plaintiffs filed this action challenging the denial of retroactive pension benefits. The parties agreed that the action should be adjudicated with the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order (the “First Opinion”) denying the parties' first cross-motions for summary judgment. The case was remanded for the Plan Administrator to reconsider whether a participant must give written notice to be entitled to receive Special Update benefits under the 1998 Plan, considering additional extrinsic evidence. Grosso, 2019 WL 4805809, at *9. The First Opinion did not reach the question of whether the BPC was proper in finding that Plaintiffs had received adequate notice. Id. at *9 n.4.
On April 28, 2020, having considered additional evidence, the BPC issued a third denial of benefits (the “Third BPC Denial”), finding again that written application was required. The Third BPC Denial did not revisit the adequate notice issue. The parties filed a renewed crossmotions for summary judgment, this time addressing only whether written election was required. On May 25, 2021, the Court issued the Second Opinion, in which it agreed with the Third BPC Denial and granted Defendants' summary judgment.
On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a ruling on the notice issue and seeking summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs on the ground that Grosso and Wing had not received adequate notice. On June 24, 2021, Defendants responded that Plaintiffs had received adequate notice. The parties supplemented their filings on June 28, 2021, and June 30, 2021.
On October 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief under Rules 54(b) and 60(b)(1) and (6), Fed. R. Civ. P., challenging the substantive holding in the Second Opinion based on purported new authority holding that a pension plan may not condition entitlement to pension benefits based on ambiguous plan language. See Browe v. CTC Corp., 15 F.4th 175 (2d Cir. 2021). At the court's direction, Defendants responded on November 12, 2021. On November 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
“A motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [movant] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lewis v. Nissan N. Am. Inc., No. 04 Civ. 562, 2021 WL 807126, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2021). A motion for reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.” Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman, No. 20 Civ. 10575, 2021 WL 2227205, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is “strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“It is black letter law that a motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court[.]” Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA v. Las Vegas Pro. Football Ltd. P'ship, 409 Fed.Appx. 401, 403 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (summary order); accord Mader v. Experian Info. Sols., LLC, No. 19 Civ. 3787, 2020 WL 5416337, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2020).
In reviewing the BPC's decisions, the Court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard for the reasons stated in the First Opinion. See Grosso, 2019 WL 4805809, at *6-7. This standard requires the Court to overturn the BPC's decision if it was “without reason . . . unsupported by substantial evidence or . . . erroneous as a matter of law.” Arnone v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 860 F.3d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 886 F.3d 97, 109 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied because neither party raised the issue of adequate notice on their renewed motion for summary judgment. On September 14, 2020, the parties were directed to renew their cross-motions for summary judgment. When they did so, neither party raised the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' notice. Although Defendants flagged the issue in their pre-motion letter, Plaintiffs on their motion did not ask the Court to reverse the BPC's findings on the adequacy of notice provided to Wing and Grosso respectively, nor did Defendants raise those findings. Plaintiffs' current challenge to the adequacy of notice does not rest on an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc., 729 F.3d at 104 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no clear error or manifest injustice because, as explained below, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the notice issue as well.
The finding in the Second BPC Denial that Plaintiffs received adequate notice was not arbitrary or capricious. The BPC found that AT&T sent the Notice Letters to those who were active management employees. The PBC relied on testimony from two trial witnesses in Helton v. AT&T, Inc., 805 F.Supp.2d 234, 238-39 (E.D. Va. 2011), aff'd, 709 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2013), as well as information from the Plan's recordkeeper. Based on this evidence, the BPC concluded that Plaintiffs, as active management employees at that time, received the Notice Letters notwithstanding their denial of having received them.
Plaintiffs argue that the BPC's decision was erroneous for two reasons. Both are unpersuasive. First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to provide the legally required notice of material changes to a plan. Plaintiffs argue that the 1998 Summary Plan Description (the “1998 SPD”), issued in January 1998, is the only document that is legally sufficient in substance and timeliness, but by the time it was sent to active management employees, Plaintiffs had terminated their employment and were no longer in the recipient group. Second, Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, even if the earlier Notice Letters were legally sufficient, the BPC had an insufficient basis to conclude that Plaintiffs received them. These arguments are incorrect as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial