Raya v. Barka
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-2295-WQH-AHG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | ROBERT RAYA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BARKA; NOORI BARKA; EVELYN BARKA; CALBIOTECH, INC.; CALBIOTECH, INC. 401k PROFIT SHARING PLAN; CALBIOTECH, INC. PENSION PLAN, Defendants. DAVID BARKA; NOORI BARKA; EVELYN BARKA; CALBIOTECH, INC.; CALBIOTECH, INC. 401k PROFIT SHARING PLAN; CALBIOTECH, INC. PENSION PLAN, Counter Claimants, v. ROBERT RAYA, Counter Defendant. |
The matters before the Court are: (1) the Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 60, 79, 92 102); (2) the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint or Alternatively for a More Definite Statement filed by Defendants (ECF No. 77); (3) the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternatively Summary Adjudication filed by Defendants (ECF No. 83); (4) the Cross-Motion for Legal Findings and Conclusions filed by Defendants (ECF No. 97); and (5) the Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF No. 106).
On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Raya, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants, including David Barka, Noori Barka, Evelyn Barka, Calbiotech, Inc. (“Calbiotech”), Calbiotech Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan”), and Calbiotech 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “401(k) Plan”). (ECF No. 1). On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 39). The FAC alleged that Defendants engaged in illegal conduct relating to the administration of the Pension Plan and 401(k) Plan and unlawfully terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for his requests for plan documents. The FAC brought four claims on behalf of Plaintiff and the retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as well as claims under California state law.
On December 22, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 40). On June 3, 2021, the Court issued an Order dismissing the fourth claim for ERISA interference, dismissing the state law claims, striking the request for a jury trial, and otherwise denying the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 45).
On June 17, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC and a Counterclaim for breach of contract. (ECF No. 46). The Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant entered into a separation agreement with Calbiotech (the “Separation Agreement”) and released all claims arising prior to execution of the Separation Agreement on December 7, 2016. The Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant breached the terms of the Separation Agreement by filing complaints with the United States Department of Labor, this lawsuit against Defendants/Counter Claimants (hereinafter, “Defendants”), and a related lawsuit against Calbiotech. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) filed an Answer to the Counterclaim. (ECF No. 50).
On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Declaratory Judgment “as to the validity and enforceability” of an amendment to the Pension Plan (the “2008 Amendment”). (ECF No. 60 at 1).
On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging the same four ERISA claims asserted in the FAC. (ECF No. 64). The first claim alleges that Calbiotech, the Pension Plan, the 401(k) Plan, and the plan administrators violated 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) by not enrolling Plaintiff in the Pension Plan and by failing to make “[a]utomatic or mandatory employer contributions described in 401(k) Plan documents.” (Id. ¶ 67). The second claim alleges that the fiduciaries of the retirement plans violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2) by failing to lawfully discharge their duties as fiduciaries when they (1) “intentionally withheld plan documents for both retirement plans from participants resulting in missed contributions and losses for both plans”; (2) “failed to disclose the existence of the [ ] Pension Plan . . . resulting in a failure to enroll eligible employees and missed contributions to the Pension Plan”; (3) “introduced an invalid, backdated, and fraudulent document, ” which described the “illegal” and “discriminatory” 2008 Amendment to the Pension Plan; (4) “misled participants regarding Calbiotech['s] [ ] mandatory contributions under the [401(k) Plan] . . . resulting in missed employer contributions and losses to the plan”; and (5) “failed to remit employee payroll deductions to 401(k) accounts.” (Id. ¶ 73). The third claim alleges that the same course of conduct harmed Plaintiff in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a) and 1132(a)(3). The fourth claim alleges that David Barka, Noori Barka, and Calbiotech violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 1140 and 1132(a)(3) by terminating Plaintiff “in retaliation [for] [Plaintiff] exercising his rights under ERISA to request [p]lan [d]ocuments.” (Id. ¶ 82). The SAC requests the recovery of benefits under the retirement plans, “the removal of Defendants as fiduciaries and trustees” of the retirement plans, the “appointment of an independent actuary to accurately quantitate total losses suffered, ” and other relief. (Id. ¶ 86).
On September 15, 2021, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 74). On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 75).
On September 24, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. (ECF No. 77). On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 78).
On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Declaratory Judgment Regarding Waiver. (ECF No. 79).
On October 22, 2021, Defendants filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 81).
On November 3, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternatively Summary Adjudication on Plaintiff's first three claims. (ECF No. 83).
On November 5, 2021, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Waiver. (ECF No. 84). On November 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 85).
On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 87).
On November 17, 2021, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Waiver. (ECF No. 89).[1]
On November 24, 2021, Defendants filed a Reply in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 90).
On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Void Amendment, raising additional arguments regarding the validity and enforceability of the 2008 Amendment to the Pension Plan. (ECF No. 92). On January 28, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Void Amendment and “Cross-Motion for Legal Findings and Conclusions.” (ECF No. 97 at 5).
On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment to Void Waiver. (ECF No. 102).
On February 17, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on all motions pending before the Court as of January 31, 2022. (ECF No. 103).
On February 25, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment to Void Waiver and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 106). On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 113).
Calbiotech is the Plan Administrator of the Pension Plan. Calbiotech established and adopted the Pension Plan on December 28, 2008, with a retroactive effective date of September 1, 2008. The Standardized Non-Integrated Adoption Agreement (the “Adoption Agreement”) provides that “[a]ll Employees” who meet certain minimum requirements are eligible to participate in the Pension Plan, subject to several exceptions not applicable to the facts of this case. (ECF No. 74-4 at 3).
The Prototype Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Basic Plan #02 (the “Basic Plan”) provides that the “Employer may amend the [Pension] [P]lan . . . at any time, ” subject to several restrictions not applicable to the facts of this case. (ECF No. 74-5 at 6). Calbiotech adopted the 2008 Amendment to the Pension Plan on December 28, 2008, effective retroactively as of September 1, 2008. The 2008 Amendment provides that “[a]ll of the Employees other than Noori Barka, Evelyn Barka, David Barka, Danny Barka, Ann Barka, Amar Dawood, and Sabreen Najeeb are not participants under the Pension Plan.” (ECF No. 74-6 at 2).[2]
Calbiotech is also the Plan Administrator of the 401(k) Plan, which it established and adopted effective September 1, 2008. The 401(k) Plan has been amended and restated several times, most recently on April 3, 2017. The 401(k) Plan includes an anti-alienation provision that prohibits participants and beneficiaries in the 401(k) Plan from “assign[ing] alienat[ing], transfer[ing] or sell[ing] any right or claim to a benefit or distribution from the Plan.” (ECF No. 74-9 at 215). The 401(k) Plan further provides procedures for administrative claims and states that “[i]f the Plan Administrator makes a final written determination denying a Participant's or Beneficiary's benefit claim, . . . [a]ny legal or equitable action must be commenced no later than the earlier of: (1) 180 days following the date of the final determination or (2) Three years following the proof of loss.” (ECF No. 74-9 at 192). Plaintiff was employed by Calbiotech as a scientist beginning in May or June 2008 and ending when Calbiotech terminated Plaintiff's employment in late 2016. Prior to his employment, Plaintiff attended college but...
To continue reading
Request your trial