Hakim v. Accenture United States Pension Plan

• Decision Date: 03 September 2009
• Docket Number: Case No. 08-cv-3682.
• Citation: 656 F.Supp.2d 801
• Parties: Omar HAKIM, Plaintiff, v. ACCENTURE UNITED STATES PENSION PLAN, Accenture LLP, Accenture Inc., Accenture LLC, and Accenture Ltd., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

656 F.Supp.2d 801

Omar HAKIM, Plaintiff, v.ACCENTURE UNITED STATES PENSION PLAN, Accenture LLP, Accenture Inc., Accenture LLC, and Accenture Ltd., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-3682.

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

September 3, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Troy A. Doles, Matthew H. Armstrong, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Ian H. Morrison, Mark A. Casciari, Barbara Holly Borowski, Keri B. Halperin, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, James Richard Beyer, Haligman and Lottner, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff, Omar Hakim("Hakim"), filed a putative class action complaint [1] on June 27, 2008 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,29 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.("ERISA"), against Accenture United States Pension Plan and Accenture LLP.Subsequently, on September 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a first amended class action complaint [29] adding additional defendants.The first amended complaint asserts five counts under ERISA against Accenture United States Pension Plan (the "Plan"), Accenture LLP, Accenture Inc., Accenture LLC, and Accenture Ltd.(collectively "Defendants").Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss[59]Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I.Background¹

On October 4, 1993, DefendantAccenture LLP(then operating as Andersen Consulting LLP) hired Plaintiff to work in its Los Colinas, Texas office.As of the date that he was hired, Plaintiff was a "participant" in the Plan, and accrued benefits under the terms of the Plan.²Defendants altered the Plan's eligibility requirements in an amendment to the Plan that took effect on July 1, 1996.Under the 1996Amendment, Plan participants could become ineligible to accrue additional benefits if they switched jobs within Accenture.Plaintiff received no notice of the 1996Amendment.

On December 16, 1999, Accenture promoted and transferred Plaintiff to a different service line within the company.Pursuant to the 1996Amendment, Plaintiff's promotion made him ineligible to continue accruing benefits under the Plan.According to Plaintiff, he did not realize that he had stopped accruing benefits until July 7, 2003, when he received his final statement of benefits from Defendants.³The final benefits statement showed that Plaintiff had accrued benefits for the 6.202 years of service he performed between October 4, 1993—when he was first hired—and December 16, 1999, but that he had accrued no Plan benefits between his promotion on December 16, 1999 and his termination on May 16, 2003.Based on the 6.202 years of service during which Defendants say Plaintiff accrued benefits under the Plan, Plaintiff will be entitled to a monthly benefit payment of $766.28 beginning at age 62.According to Plaintiff, if his monthly benefit were calculated on the basis of his full 9.619 years of service (between October 4, 1993 and May 16, 2003)—as he claims it should be—he will receive $1,963.76 per month in benefits.

On July 21, 2003, Plaintiff made a written request to Defendants requesting assistance in determining his pension eligibility dates and benefits.In response, on or around July 29, 2003, Defendants provided Plaintiff with a copy of the Plan; at that time, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any summary plan descriptions or other documents.On December 12, 2003, Defendants informed Plaintiff that, pursuant to the 1996Amendment, he had become ineligible to participate in the Plan on December 16, 1999.

Plaintiff later sent Defendants a letter notifying them that he intended to file a lawsuit seeking benefits under the Plan.Defendants responded on July 9, 2007 by informing Plaintiff that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies, and inviting him to do so.On July 27, 2007Plaintiff made an administrative claim for benefits and an express written request for the plan documents in effect during Plaintiff's service, including plan documents containing "the provisions regarding appeal."Defendants denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits on November 20, 2007.Plaintiff appealed that denial on November 29, 2007; at that time, Plaintiff also made a written request for the plan documents in effect during Plaintiff's service, including "[a]ny and all summary plan descriptions from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2003."On January 25, 2008, Defendants provided copies of the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 summary plan descriptions.Plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his claim for benefits was denied on April 2, 2008.At that time, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he had now exhausted his administrative remedies under the Plan's terms, and notified him that could "exercise his right to bring a civil lawsuit in federal court under Section 502(a) of ERISA to challenge this adverse benefit determination" within 120 days of the date of the letter.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on June 27, 2008.Count I seeks equitable relief pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(3),29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), for Defendants' alleged failure to provide timely notice of the 1996Amendment in violation of ERISA § 204(h),29 U.S.C. § 1054(h)(1996).Count II sets forth an identical claim for equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3) for Defendants' alleged failure to provide proper notice of the 1996Amendment(including notice of the amendment's wording and the fact that it might reduce benefits), as required by ERISA § 204(h).Count III, which also seeks equitable relief pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(3), alleges that Defendants violated ERISA § 102,29 U.S.C. § 1022, by failing to provide Summary Plan Descriptions ("SPDs") that contained comprehensible descriptions of the Plan's eligibility requirements and the circumstances that may result in disqualification, ineligibility or denial or loss of benefits.

The equitable relief that Plaintiff requests in each of Counts I-III consists of an order declaring the 1996Amendment ineffective and "the incidental monetary relief mechanically flowing from that injunctive relief" in an amount equal to the difference between the pension benefits as calculated under the 1996Amendment and as re-calculated under the terms of the pre-Amendment Plan.

Count IV sets forth an alternative claim for benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B),29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), based on the statutory violations alleged in Counts I-III.In Count IV, Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount equal to the difference between the pension benefits as calculated under the 1996Amendment and as re-calculated under the terms of the pre-Amendment Plan.Thus, the "damages" sought in the alternative in Count IV are identical to the "incidental monetary relief" sought in Counts I-III.

Count V seeks statutory damages pursuant to ERISA § 502(c)(1),29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), for Defendants' alleged failure, upon written request, to provide Plaintiff with SPDs that complied with ERISA § 104.

II.Legal Standard On Motion To Dismiss

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the case.SeeGibson v. City of Chicago,910 F.2d 1510, 1520(7th Cir.1990).To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint first must comply with Rule 8(a) by providing "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"(Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)), such that the defendant is given "fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007)(quotingConley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957)).Second, the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to raise the possibility of relief above the "speculative level," assuming that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc.,496 F.3d 773, 776(7th Cir.2007)(quotingTwombly,550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955)."[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint."Twombly,550 U.S. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955.The Court accepts as true all of the well-pleaded facts alleged by the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.SeeBarnes v. Briley,420 F.3d 673, 677(7th Cir.2005).

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court generally must confine its inquiry to the factual allegations set forth within the four corners of the operative complaint.SeeRosenblum v. Travelbyus.com,299 F.3d 657, 661(7th Cir.2002).In the usual case, therefore, if a party moving for a 12(b)(6) dismissal submits documents with its motion to dismiss, the Court either must ignore the documents or convert the motion to one for summary judgment.SeeFed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b);Venture Assoc. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp.,987 F.2d 429, 431(7th Cir.1993).However, "[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings," and may be considered on a motion to dismiss, "if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim."Venture,987 F.2d at 431.Documents that fall within this "narrow" exception must be "concededly authentic."Tierney v. Vahle,304 F.3d 734, 738(7th Cir.2002).

Here, the Court will consider three categories of documents that were not attached to the complaint: (1) the 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 SPDs⁴; (2) the General Information portions of the 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 SPDs⁵; and (3)Pl...