Hudson v. Empire State Carpenters Annuity Fund

Decision Date24 February 2013
Docket NumberC.A. No. 11-12134-MLW
PartiesJAMES E. HUDSON and FAY E. HUDSON, Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE STATE CARPENTERS ANNUITY FUND, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

JAMES E. HUDSON and FAY E. HUDSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
EMPIRE STATE CARPENTERS ANNUITY FUND, Defendant.

C.A. No. 11-12134-MLW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Dated: February 24, 2013


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, D.J.

Pro se plaintiffs James E. Hudson and Faye E. Hudson bring this action against defendant Empire State Carpenters Annuity Fund (the "Fund") for violation of the disclosure requirements imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Fund refused to comply with their request for information regarding their annuity balance in violation of 29 U.S.C. §1132(c). Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) (the "Motion to Dismiss") on the basis that plaintiffs have failed to name the proper party, specifically, the plan administrator. In response, plaintiffs request leave to amend the Complaint to, if necessary, name the plan administrator as a defendant.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) a motion to dismiss will be denied if a plaintiff has shown "a plausible entitlement to relief." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

Page 2

544, 559 (2007); see also Morales-Tanon v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 524 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 2008). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "take all factual allegations as true and . . . draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2007). When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the pleadings are to be "liberally construed." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Where a pro se plaintiff presents sufficient facts, "the court may intuit the correct cause of action," even if the claim was imperfectly pleaded. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).

The Fund is an employee benefit plan in which plaintiffs participate. ERISA controls the administration of such benefit plans and imposes, among other things, reporting and disclosure mandates. See New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 651 (1995). Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to §1132(c), which "establishes a cause of action for plan participants and beneficiaries, allowing for the recovery of benefits due under the terms of the plan, the enforcement of rights under the terms of the plan, or the clarification of rights to future benefits under the plan." Otero Carrasguillo v. Pharmacia, 382 F. Supp. 2d 300, 307 (D.P.R. 2005); see 29 U.S.C. §1132(c)(B). Specifically, §1132(c)(l) provides, in

Page 3

relevant part, that:

Any administrator . . . (B) who fails or refuses to comply with a request for any information which such administrator is required by this subchapter to furnish to a participant or beneficiary . . . by mailing the material requested . . . within 30 days after such request may in the court's discretion be personally liable to such participant or beneficiary in the amount of up to $100 a day.

In support of the Motion to Dismiss, defendant asserts that it cannot be held liable under §1132 (c) (1) because the Fund is an employee benefit plan and not the plan administrator. Section 1132(c) holds a plan "administrator . . . who...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT