Bartnett v. Abbott Labs.

• Decision Date: 02 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20-CV-02127,20-CV-02127
• Citation: 492 F.Supp.3d 787
• Parties: Heide K. BARTNETT, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Abbott Corporate Benefits, Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan, Marlon Sullivan, and Alight Solutions, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

492 F.Supp.3d 787

Heide K. BARTNETT, Plaintiff,

v.ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Abbott Corporate Benefits, Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan, Marlon Sullivan, and Alight Solutions, LLC, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-02127

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed October 2, 2020

Donnell Joseph Bell, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Cincinnati, OH, James Leo Oakley, Todd A. Rowden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Harnaik Singh Kahlon, Mariangela M. Seale, Ronald S. Safer, Sarah Elizabeth Finch, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, LLP, Jorge M. Leon, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Corporate Benefits, Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan, Marlon Sullivan.

Craig Christopher Martin, Matt D. Basil, Samantha Marie Glass, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Alight Solutions LLC.

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

Thomas M. Durkin, United States District Judge Plaintiff Heide K. Bartnett brings this action against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Corporate Benefits, Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan, Marlon Sullivan (collectively "Abbott Defendants") and Alight Solutions, LLC ("Alight") alleging that the Abbott Defendants and Alight breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. She also alleges that Alight violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The Abbott Defendants and Alight separately moved to dismiss Bartnett's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and alternatively to strike its jury demand. R. 33; R. 26. For the following reasons, the Abbott Defendants’ motion is granted and Alight's motion is denied.

Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the "sufficiency of the complaint." Berger v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Assoc. , 843 F.3d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 2016). A complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), sufficient to provide defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and the basis for it. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). This standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). " ‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ " Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc. , 880 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). In applying this standard, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Tobey v. Chibucos , 890 F.3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2018).

Background

A. Bartnett's Retirement Funds Are Stolen

Bartnett is a participant in the Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan ("Retirement Plan"). R. 1 ¶¶ 13-14. When Bartnett retired from Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott Labs") in 2012, she chose to leave her retirement savings in her Retirement Plan account. Id. ¶ 14. The $362,510.84 in the account served as her primary retirement savings. Id. ¶ 21.

On or about December 29, 2018, someone other than Bartnett accessed her account online. Id. ¶ 26. According to the complaint, the imposter visited abbottbenefits.com, selected the "Forgot Password" option, and then entered Bartnett's date of birth and the last four digits of her social security number. Id. ¶ 27. The website rejected the entries but gave the imposter an option either to answer security questions or receive a one-time code sent to Bartnett's email address. Id. The imposter opted to receive the code, which Bartnett says she never received. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. The imposter then used the code to access Bartnett's Retirement Plan account, change her account password, and add direct deposition information for a SunTrust bank account that was not hers. Id. ¶ 28-29.

Two days later, someone contacted the Abbott Benefits Center claiming to be Bartnett. Id. ¶ 30. Alight operates the Abbott Benefits Center and abbottbenefits.com. Id. ¶ 7. The imposter called the Abbott Benefits Center from a phone number that did not belong to Bartnett, had never been used by Bartnett, and was not associated with Bartnett's Retirement Plan account. Id. ¶ 30. The imposter told the customer service representative that she tried to process a distribution online but was unsuccessful. Id. ¶ 31. The service representative allegedly responded by reading aloud Bartnett's home address and asking the imposter if she still lived there. Id. ¶ 32. The service representative then said that a new bank account—such as the SunTrust account set up a few days earlier—must be on file for seven days before money can be transferred to it from the Retirement Plan account. Id. The service representative said that a distribution could therefore occur the following Monday. Id. ¶ 33.

A day later, on January 1, 2019, Bartnett received a "Direct Deposit Address Addition" notice in the mail. Id. ¶ 34. According to Bartnett, her preferred method of communications regarding her Retirement Plan account is email. Id. ¶ 17. Had she received the direct deposit notice via email instead of mail, Bartnett alleges that she could have challenged the addition of the SunTrust bank account before any improper transfers were made from her Retirement Plan account. Id. ¶ 34.

On January 4, 2019, Bartnett's husband attempted to access the Retirement Plan account online but was unable to because the account password had been changed by the imposter days earlier. Id. ¶ 35. Bartnett's husband answered the security question and then changed the account password. Id. Bartnett received notification of the password change via email—her preferred method of communication. Id. At this point, no funds had been improperly transferred. Id.

Then, four days later, on January 8, the imposter again called the Abbott Benefits Center. As before, the imposter called from a phone number that had not previously been associated with the Retirement Plan account or Bartnett. Id. ¶ 37. The service representative did not ask the imposter any security questions, opting instead to send another one-time code to Bartnett's email address. Id. ¶ 38. Bartnett says that she has no record of receiving that email. Id. The imposter then asked the service representative to transfer $245,000 from the Retirement Plan account to the SunTrust bank account. Id. ¶ 40. The service representative complied. Id.

The imposter made another call to the service center the following day, on January 9, asking if the funds had been successfully transferred to the SunTrust bank account. Id. ¶ 42. The service representative reported that the transfer request had been processed and that the funds would be available on January 14. Id. Also on January 9, a letter was sent via first class U.S. Mail to Bartnett advising her of the transfer. Id. ¶ 41. Bartnett did not receive the letter until January 14. Id. She called the service center on January 15, and the service representative immediately froze Bartnett's Retirement Plan account. Id. ¶ 44. According to Bartnett, she would have been able to halt the transfer had she received immediate notification of it via email. Id.

B. Bartnett Contacts the Police

Bartnett reported the theft to the Darien Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 46-47. Subpoenas were thereafter served on SunTrust Bank, Alight, and Abbott Benefits Center, requesting all records related to Bartnett's retirement account and the fraudulent transfer of funds. Id. ¶ 46. The Darien Police Department also investigated the I.P. address from which Bartnett's account had been accessed. Id. ¶ 50. The investigation revealed that the I.P. address was assigned to an individual living in India. Id. ¶ 51.

C. Bartnett and Her Attorney Attempt to Retrieve the Stolen Funds

On January 31, 2019, Bartnett's attorney, Bernard Lord, sent a demand letter to Abbott Benefits Center. Id. ¶ 54. The Abbott Labs attorney who responded to the letter made no guaranties that Bartnett would be made whole. Id. In the meantime, Bartnett continued to contact the Abbott Benefits Center several times a week. Id. ¶¶ 53, 55. She says that while she recovered about $108,485, a service representative told her in April 2019 that she would not receive any additional funds. Id. ¶¶ 55–57.

Between March and September 2019, Mr. Lord—Bartnett's attorney—communicated regularly with the Abbott Labs attorney. Id. ¶ 58. According to Bartnett, Mr. Lord received an email from the attorney in July 2019, which stated that the attorney was waiting to hear more from "the powers that be" regarding a resolution to Bartnett's case. Id. ¶ 58. The attorney sent Mr. Lord another email on August 1, 2019, stating that one of the individuals in the decision chain was dealing with an emergency on another matter. Id. ¶ 59. The following day, Mr. Lord informed the Abbott Labs attorney that Bartnett had the investigative records collected by the Darien Police Department. Id. ¶ 60. Mr. Lord provided the attorney with the records and then spoke to her over the phone. Id. ¶¶ 62–63. On that call, the attorney said that the decision maker for Bartnett's case was out of the country but that she would call Mr. Lord a few days later. Id. ¶¶ 63–64.

Mr. Lord did not hear back from anyone at...