Jenkins v. Local 705 Intern. Broth. of Teamsters Pension Plan

• Citation: 713 F.2d 247
• Decision Date: 08 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-2785,82-2785
• Parties: 4 Employee Benefits Cas. 2315 James F. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL 705 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Page 247

713 F.2d 247

4 Employee Benefits Cas. 2315

James F. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL 705 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82-2785.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 7, 1983.

Decided July 8, 1983.

Michael M. Mulder, Meites & Frackman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Sherman Carmell, Carmell, Charone & Widmer, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before BAUER and COFFEY, Circuit Judges, and HOLDER, District Judge. ^*

HOLDER, District Judge.

Appellant, James F. Jenkins, appeals from the district court's October 28, 1982 (docketed November 1, 1982) order granting the motion of appellee, Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan, for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse.

Procedural Background

The appellant commenced his action in the district court on June 4, 1982 with the filing of his three count complaint. The appellant brought his action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereafter 'ERISA'), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., to obtain benefits and to enforce and clarify his rights under an employee pension benefit plan (hereafter 'Plan'). Count I of his complaint sought full retirement benefits based on normal retirement date and age of sixty-five (65). Count II reincorporated the allegations of Count I, and sought early retirement benefits based on appellant's age of fifty-seven in 1969. Count III reincorporated the allegations of Count I, and sought deferred vested retirement benefits under the Plan.

The appellant filed its answer to the complaint on June 30, 1982 in admissions and denials, along with certain affirmative defenses.

On September 3, 1982 the appellee filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on the affirmative defenses of statutes of limitations barring each of the claims in Counts I, II and III of the complaint, and based on the affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust internal remedies of the Plan. In support of its motion, the appellee submitted a memorandum of law. The appellee argued that appellant's claims alleged in Counts I, II and III of the complaint were untimely filed and were barred by the ninety (90) day period set forth in Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 10, § 112 for vacating an arbitration award and/or the six (6) month period provided in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). The appellee also argued that the claims in Counts II and III were improperly before the trial court because they had not been presented to the Trustees as provided for in the Plan.

The appellant's response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings asserted that the applicable statute of limitations was the Illinois ten (10) year statute of limitations for actions on a written contract, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 13-206. The appellant's response also argued that he had exhausted the internal administrative remedies provided in the Plan and/or the exhaustion should be excused as further efforts would have been futile.

On October 28, 1982, the district court granted the motion for judgment on such affirmative defenses in the pleadings "for the reasons set forth in defendant's memorandum."

The appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on November 3, 1982. ¹

Issues on Appeal

The issues presented on appeal by the parties may be characterized as follows: (1) did the district court err in concluding that the appellant's three count complaint was time-barred and if so, what statute of limitations governs each of the counts brought under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) to recover benefits under the employee pension benefit plan? and (2) did the appellant exhaust the internal remedies of the Plan, was such exhaustion required and is the exhaustion issue properly before this court?

Facts

The appellant, James F. Jenkins, was born on September 12, 1912. During some or a part of the years from 1954 through 1977, James F. Jenkins was employed by employers who had a collective bargaining agreement with Local 705 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan and Local 710 Pension Fund were parties to the Joint Council No. 25 Reciprocal Agreement and as such were engaged in covered or related employment providing for an employee pension benefit plan.

Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan, as amended February 1, 1976, and its predecessors, contain the terms and conditions for entitlement to retirement, disability and death benefits for members of Local 705. The Plan and its predecessors were established through collective bargaining agreements between various union locals, including Local 705, and employers who agreed to provide contributions to the Pension Plan Fund on behalf of covered employees and to be bound by the Plan and Trust Agreement. The 1976 amended version of the Plan, and its predecessors, contemplate that employees for whom contributions to the Plan have been made by an employer, in a bargaining unit represented by the Union, will be a participant in the Plan and eligible for benefits under the Plan. If these conditions are met, employee coverage is automatic.

James F. Jenkins attained the age of sixty-five (65) on October 1, 1977. In June of 1978, Jenkins, proceeding without counsel, requested benefits under the Plan. Jenkins' request was denied. On October 5, 1978, in an open meeting the Board of Trustees of Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan (hereafter 'Board'), considered appellant's claim for a normal or disability pension and/or an appeal for benefits. The Board denied Jenkins' request on October 5, 1978, and in a letter dated November 8, 1978 confirmed the earlier denial of his requests for benefits. On or about October 16, 1978, Jenkins sought the assistance of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago. The attorney assigned to Jenkins' case sought employment information and records from both Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan and the Social Security Administration of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The last of the requested employment information was received by Jenkins' attorney in August of 1980. In October of 1980, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago determined that appellant's claim was potentially fee generating and thus referred it to a private attorney. Appellant's new attorney requested additional employment information from the Internal Revenue Service in January of 1981. The appellant completed the compilation of information from the Internal Revenue Service in December of 1981.

Based on the additional information and supplemented employment records, Jenkins requested the Board on March 22, 1982 to reconsider his claim for a pension, along with his newly made requests for an early retirement pension and/or a deferred vested pension under the Plan. Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Plan denied the appellant's requests for reconsideration and review on May 12, 1982. The appellant filed his complaint on June 4, 1982.

Opinion

The appellant has brought his action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Specifically, Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and (e), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) provide in part as follows:

(a) A civil action may be brought--

(1) by a participant or beneficiary--

(A) ....

(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan;

(e)(1) Except for actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section, the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. State courts of competent jurisdiction and district courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction of actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section.

(2) Where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found, and process may be served in any other district where a defendant resides or may be found.

At the time of its enactment and in an attempt to resolve discrepancies between the House and Senate versions a joint explanatory statement was issued and made a part of the legislative history of ERISA. It provides, in part:

Under the conference agreement, civil actions may be brought by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits due under the plan, to clarify rights to receive future benefits under the plan, and for relief from breach of fiduciary responsibility.... However, with respect to suits to enforce benefit rights under the plan or to recover benefits under the plan which do not involve application of title I provisions, they may be brought not only in U.S. district courts but also in State courts of competent jurisdiction. All such actions in Federal or State courts are to be regarded as arising under the laws of the United States in similar fashion as to those brought under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.

H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 93-1280, Joint Explanatory-Statement of the Committee of Conference, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4639, 5038, 5107 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the legislative history and subsequent case law have made it clear that federal jurisdiction exists over and federal law will control actions brought under Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and (e) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (e). Reiherzer v. Shannon, 581 F.2d 1266, 1271 (7th Cir.1978).

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (hereafter 'LMRA'), 29 U.S.C. § 185...