Bell v. Pension Comm. of Ath Holding Co.
Decision Date | 01 August 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-02062-TWP-MPB |
Parties | MARY BELL, JANICE GRIDER, CINDY PROKISH, JOHN HOFFMAN, and PAMELA LEINONEN, Plaintiffs, v. PENSION COMMITTEE OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's jury demand. (Filing No. 16.) The dispute in this action surrounds the Plaintiffs' claims under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs' Anthem 401(k) Plan. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint and demand for jury trial. (Filing No 23.) For the following reasons the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs' jury demand.
I. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike immaterial matter from a pleading. Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a) a court may disallow a jury demand where "there is no federal right to a jury trial".
The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that there is no right to trial by jury in an ERISA case. See, e.g., Killian v. Concert Health Plan, 742 F.3d 651, 690 n.11 (7th Cir. 2013) () (internal punctuation omitted); McDougall v. Pioneer Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 494 F.3d 571, 576 (7th Cir. 2007) () (internal punctuation omitted); Patton v. MFS/Sun Life Fin. Distribs., Inc., 480 F.3d 478, 484 (7th Cir. 2007) ( ); Mathews v. Sears Pension Plan, 144 F.3d 461, 468 (7th Cir. 1998) () (internal punctuation omitted).
Similarly, district courts within the Circuit have also repeatedly come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Payne v. Pentegra Ret. Servs., No. 1:14-cv-00309-TWP-MJD, 2015 WL 898467, at *10 (S.D. Ind. March 3, 2015) ( ); George v. Kraft Foods Glob., Inc., Nos. 07 C 1713, 07 C 1954, 2008 WL 780629, at *6 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2008) ( ); Crabtree ex rel. Crabtree v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., No. 1:08-cv-444-SEB-TAB, 2009 WL 734726, at *1 n.1, 8 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2008) ( ); Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 06-cv-0701-MJR, 2007 WL 2316481, at *2-3 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2007) ( ); Spano v. Boeing Co., No. 06-cv-743-DRH, 2007 WL 1149192, at *7-9 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2007) ( ); Pine v. Crow, No. TH-00-0048-C-T/H, 2001 WL 722087, at *4 (S.D. Ind. May 10, 2001) ( ); Blickenstaff v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co. Short-Term Disability Plan, No. IP 00-983-C-B/S, 2001 WL 87480, *5 n.3 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2001) (); Morgan v. Ameritech, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1091, 1093 (C.D. Ill. 1998) ( ).
Nevertheless, the Defendants point to three United States Supreme Court decisions in an attempt to persuade the Court to depart from Seventh Circuit precedent. First, the Plaintiffs note that they bring their claims under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA. (See Filing No. 22 at 4.) However, the three cases that the Plaintiffs rely upon in support of their argument for a jury trial were all decided under the "catch all" ERISA provision, Section 502(a)(3). See Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of Nat'l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, 136 S. Ct. 651, 656 (2016); Great West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209-10, 212, 214-15, 221 (2002); Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 250 n.1, 253, 255 (1993). Second, none of the three cited cases addressed whether there is a right to a jury trial under ERISA. Id.
As such, while the Court is mindful that the Supreme Court recently noted, in a Section 502(a)(3) case, that a plaintiff who seeks "to recover out of the defendant's general assets" seeks"a legal remedy, not an equitable one", Montanile, 136 S. Ct. at 658 (emphasis in original); it is not clear that the court's holding was meant to overturn the well-established precedent regarding the right to a jury trial under Section 502(a)(2) as the Plaintiffs assert. See, e.g., In re YRC Worldwide ERISA Litig., No. 09-2593-JWL, 2010 WL 4920919, *4, 6 (D. Kan. Nov. 29, 2010) ( ); In re First Am. Corp. ERISA Litig, No. SACV 07-01357-JVS (RNBx), 2009 WL 536254, *1-3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) ( ).
Instead, following well-established Seventh Circuit precedent, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to jury demand under ERISA Section 502(a)(2). As a result, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs' jury demand.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs' jury demand. (Filing No. 16.) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' jury demand is STRICKEN.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/1/2016
/s/_________
James Redd
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
jredd@uselaws.com
Heather Lea
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
hlea@uselaws.com
Jerome J. Schlichter
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
jschlichter@uselaws.com
Kurt C. Struckhoff
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
Michael A. Wolff
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
mwolff@uselaws.com
Troy A. Doles
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
tdoles@uselaws.com
Ada W. Dolph
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
adolph@seyfarth.com
Ian Hugh Morrison
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (Chicago)
imorrison@seyfarth.com
To continue reading
Request your trial