Stanback v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
| Decision Date | 13 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | 10-CV-04155 (RRM)(RLM) |
| Parties | GEORGIA M. STANBACK, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Georgia Stanback ("plaintiff" or "Stanback") brings this action against defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("defendant" or "CHASE"). She alleges common law claims of promissory estoppel, negligence, and quantum meruit. Currently before this Court is defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court must "take[] factual allegations [in the complaint] to be true and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The following facts are either undisputed or described in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Capobianco v. City of N.Y., 422 F.3d 47, 50 n.1 (2d Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff was employed by defendant from 1981 until June 2009, her most recent position being Assistant Vice President of Operations in the Broker-Dealer Department. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 3-4.) Since defendant offered employees the option of obtaining group life insurance for themselves, their spouses, and other dependents, plaintiff obtained group life insurance covering herself and her husband, Gentry Stanback ("Gentry"), in the amount of $50,000 each.(Id. 5-6.) Defendant deducted premiums for this insurance coverage from plaintiff's salary from 1981 through April 2009. (Id.)
In October 2006, plaintiff informed the CHASE Human Resources department that she and her husband had divorced. (Id. ¶ 7.) At that time, she asked that Gentry be removed as the beneficiary of her employee benefit plan, and defendant complied. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) The CHASE Human Resources representative advised plaintiff that she "was entitled to maintain the insurance coverage on Gentry, of which plaintiff was the beneficiary, by simply continuing to pay the premiums for it." (Id. ¶ 8.) Relying on this advice, plaintiff continued to pay the premiums for the group life insurance covering her ex-husband through April 2009. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Gentry passed away on March 18, 2009. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff submitted a claim to defendant and to Prudential Insurance Company of America ("Prudential"), the administrator of the insurance plan, in anticipation of collecting $50,000 from the life insurance she maintained. (Id.) In May 2009, defendant and Prudential denied the claim because, under the group life insurance plan, an ex-spouse is not eligible for coverage. (Id. ¶ 12.)
In June 2009, defendant terminated plaintiff's employment "because she made a claim for the death benefit from the group life insurance coverage on Gentry." (Id. ¶ 13.) In September 2009, plaintiff administratively appealed the claim denial. (Id. ¶ 14.) Prudential denied the appeal in December 2009. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Plaintiff commenced the instant action on August 11, 2010, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 1.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on September 13, 2010 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Id. ¶¶ 3-7.) On March 18, 2011, defendant filed this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claimupon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10).)
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the court to examine the legal, rather than factual, sufficiency of a complaint. As required by Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." To withstand a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A court considering a 12(b)(6) motion must "take[] factual allegations [in the complaint] to be true and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Harris, 572 F.3d at 71 (citation omitted). A complaint need not contain "'detailed factual allegations,'" but it must contain "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, the plaintiff's complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The determination of whether "a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court todraw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950 (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must limit itself to the facts stated in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 54 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court must accept the factual allegations contained in the complaint as true, and view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 150 (2d Cir. 1994).
Defendant asserts that plaintiff's promissory estoppel, negligence, and quantum meruit claims are preempted by ERISA. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) at 7.) However, ERISA merely allows for a participant in an employee benefit plan to sue "to recover benefits due him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan," none of which plaintiff attempts here. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Though ERISA "completely preempts any state cause of action seeking the same relief," it nonetheless allows for state-law claims that only incidentally relate to a benefits plan, but that do not seek to recover benefits. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Maltz, No. 98 Civ. 8829 (WHP), 1999 WL 285545, at *3 ; compare Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 74, 81 (D. Conn. 1998) () with Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S.200, 208-09 (2004) ().
Plaintiff does not seek enforcement of the terms of the plan. She asserts a negligence claim based on incorrect information offered by defendant's Human Resources representative, a promissory estoppel claim because her justifiable reliance on the information given to her resulted in financial harm, and a quantum meruit claim because defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched by the premiums that she paid. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) at 2.) Thus, the preemption provision does not apply to the present claims, and her claims are not preempted by ERISA. Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare., 208 F. Supp. 2d 288, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).
Defendant also claims that the "[c]omplaint . . . should be dismissed because ERISA only authorizes suits for benefits against a benefits plan itself or the plan administrator, but not against Plaintiff's employer or former employer." (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 10.) Again, plaintiff's suit is only tangentially related to the benefits plan and does not fall under ERISA - thus, Prudential, the plan administrator, is not a named party to the action. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) Her suit is against CHASE because it was her reliance on the misinformation supplied CHASE that form the basis of her claims. As such, the Court DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims as preempted by ERISA. (Id. at 2.)
Defendant contends that plaintiff's wrongful termination claim should be dismissed because "employment for an indefinite or unspecified term is at will and may be freely terminated by either party at any time without cause or notice" (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. toDismiss at 13-14) (quoting Horn v. New York Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 90-91 (2003)). If plaintiff had pursued a wrongful termination claim, defendant would likely be correct. See Smalls v. PetSmart, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 5347 (SJF), 2010 WL 5572073, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2010) () (quoting DePetris v. Union Settlement Ass'n, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 406, 410 (1995)). However, though plaintiff's complaint does mention that "CHASE terminated Plaintiff's employment after 28 years of service, because she made a claim for the death benefit from the group life insurance coverage on Gentry," she does not appear to pursue a wrongful termination claim based on that fact. (C...
To continue reading
Request your trial