Theriot v. Bldg. Trades United Pension Tr. Fund

• Decision Date: 29 January 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 18-10250 SECTION I
• Citation: Theriot v. Bldg. Trades United Pension Tr. Fund, CIVIL ACTION No. 18-10250 SECTION I (E.D. La. Jan 29, 2020)
• Parties: DEBORAH THERIOT v. BUILDING TRADES UNITED PENSION TRUST FUND, ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

DEBORAH THERIOT v. BUILDING TRADES UNITEDPENSION TRUST FUND, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION No. 18-10250 SECTION I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

January 29, 2020

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiffDeborah Theriot's ("Theriot")motion¹ for reconsideration.Theriot requests that the Court reconsider and reverse its orders² granting defendant Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund's (the "Fund")motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.The Fund seeks attorneys' fees in connection with opposing the instant motion.³For the following reasons, Theriot's motion is denied, but the Court declines to exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees.

The Court assumes familiarity with the factual background of the case.SeeTheriot v. Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund, 394 F. Supp. 3d 597(E.D. La.2019)(granting motion to dismiss);Theriot v. Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund, No. 18-10250, 2019 WL 5693045(E.D. La.Nov. 4, 2019)(granting summary judgment).

I.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for reconsideration.Bass v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962(5th Cir.2000).The question of which procedural rule applies depends on the timing of such a motion.Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 582 F. App'x 284, 286(5th Cir.2014)(citation omitted).A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of the district court judgment being challenged is characterized as a motion to alter or amend the judgment and construed pursuant to Rule 59(e).Seeid.A motion for reconsideration filed more than twenty-eight days after the judgment is treated as a Rule 60(b)motion for relief from judgment.Seeid.Theriot filed this motion on December 2, 2019, within twenty-eight days of the entry of final judgment.⁴Accordingly, a Rule 59(e) analysis is appropriate.

A motion pursuant to Rule 59(e)"calls into question the correctness of a judgment."Allen v. Envirogreen Landscape Professionals, Inc., 721 F. App'x 322, 328(5th Cir.2017)(citations omitted)."Rule 59(e)'serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newlydiscovered evidence.'"Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479(5th Cir.2004)(quotingWaltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473(5th Cir.1989)).Thus, "[a]motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued."In re Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 926 F.3d 103, 128(5th Cir.2019)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)."Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly."Koerner v. CMR Construction & Roofing, L.L.C., 910 F.3d 221, 226(5th Cir.2018)(quotingTemplet, 367 F.3d at 479).

II.

The Court granted the Fund's motion⁵ to dismiss as to counts one, two, four, and five of Theriot's second amended complaint on July 17, 2019.⁶Theriot filed a motion⁷ to reconsiderthe Court's order on August 27, 2019, which the Court denied.⁸The Court granted summary judgment as to count three in favor of the Fund on November 4, 2019.⁹

The Court will not reconsider its order dismissing counts one, two, four, and five of Theriot's second amended complaint for the second time, as Theriot has presented no new evidence or demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact that wouldcompel the Court to reverse its prior ruling.SeeTemplet, 367 F.3d at 479.Accordingly, the Court will only consider the instant motion as it pertains to the Court's grant of summary judgment as to count three of Theriot's second amended complaint.

The Court will also not consider any arguments that Theriot raises for the first time in the instant motion.SeeSchiller, 342 F.3d at 568.

III.

Count three of Theriot's second amended complaint alleges that the Fund, through its Board of Trustees(the "Board"), failed to timely produce requested plan documents in violation of ERISA,29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) and that, therefore, Theriot is entitled to penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c).¹⁰

Theriot only challenges the Court's order as it pertains to whether she should be awarded statutory penalties for the Fund's failure to produce the 1990 collective bargaining agreement.Theriot argues that the Court should reconsider its decision for three primary reasons: (1) Theriot's November 2, 2018 letter clearly requested the 1990 collective bargaining agreement¹¹; (2)the Court should have considered other forms of prejudice suffered by Theriot due to the Fund's failure to produce the 1990 collective bargaining agreement, such as her frustration, trouble, and expense in trying to obtain the document¹²; and (3) the Fund's communications with Robert Hamann's ("Hamann") union constitute new evidence that demonstrates that theFund acted in bad faith when it failed to produce the 1990 collective bargaining agreement in response to Theriot's requests.¹³

A.

Theriot first argues that she gave the Fund clear notice that she sought the collective bargaining agreement by which Hamann participated in the plan—that is, the 1990 collective bargaining agreement.¹⁴

On November 2, 2018, Theriot's counsel sent a letter to the Fund requesting, in pertinent part,

[R]ecords evidencing adoption of the plan and any amendments in force as of the date of Mr. Hamann's death in December 2016, as well as those in effect on the date of Audrey Hamann's request for payment of the survivor benefit in a lump sum. . . .[and] all documents regarding the pension rights of Robert A. Hamann, including the following . . . [a][l]ist of all contracts related to the plan's operations and copies of same, including a copy of any signed contract between the employer and the third party[.]¹⁵

The Fund argues that a reasonable plan administrator would not have understood a request for a "copy of any signed contract between the employer and the third party" that is "related to the plan's operations" to include the 1990 collective bargaining agreement, because such agreement is not related to the Fund's operations and Hamann's union is not a third party.¹⁶

i.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4), plan administrators must, "upon written request of any participant or beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated summary[] plan description, and the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract, or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated."

29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) gives courts discretion to award penalty damages for violations of § 1024(b)(4):

"Any administrator . . . 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 . . . 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 from the date of such failure or refusal[.]"

The Fifth Circuit construes ERISA's penalty provision strictly.Fisher v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 895 F.2d 1073, 1077(5th Cir.1990).The decision to grant or deny a request for penalties is within the Court's discretion.SeeAbraham v. Exxon Corp., 85 F.3d 1126, 1132(5th Cir.1996).

A claimant does not have to request a document under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) using its precise name, but the request must be sufficiently clear to "provide clear notice to the plan administrator of the information"the claimant desires.Van Bael v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 18-6873, 2019 WL 160183, at *3(E.D. La.Jan. 10, 2019)(Africk, J.) (quoting Kollman v. Hewitt Assocs., LLC, 487 F.3d 139, 145(3d Cir.2007)(citations omitted).The "touchstone" of sufficiency "is whether the request provides the necessary clear notice to a reasonable plan administrator which, giventhe context of the request, should be provided."Center for Restorative Breast Surgery, LLC v. Humana Health Benefit Plan of La., Inc., No. 10-4346, 2015 WL 4394034, at *17(E.D. La.July 15, 2015)(Fallon, J.)(quotingKollman, 487 F.3d at 146;citingFisher, 895 F.2d at 1077).

Whether a request gave the plan administrator clear notice of the document sought "depend[s] upon the circumstances of th[e] case and no general rule can be formulated."Kollman, 487 F.3d at 145.The Court must look to whether "either the request or the response indicates that [the plan administrator] knew or should have known that [the participant or beneficiary] had requested a copy of" the document sought.Fisher, 895 F.2d at 1077.

Requests that are ambiguous, taking into account the context of prior communications between the plan administrator and participant or beneficiary, do not satisfy the "clear notice" test.For example, the Third Circuit held that a request for "[a]ll documents of any nature which relate, reflect or refer [to] the . . . adjustment to [plaintiff's] benefits" did not give the plan administrator clear notice that the plaintiff sought the plan and summary plan description.Kollman, 487 F.3d at 146.Prior communications between the plan administrator and the plaintiff"signaled only [the plaintiff]'s interest in the calculation of his own benefits," and neither the plan nor the summary plan description provided any information in regard to such calculation.Id.;see alsoCataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542, 555-56(6th Cir.2012)(holding that a request for "plan documents" did not provide clear notice that plaintiffs also sought actuarial valuation reports because the fund could havereasonably concluded, based on established Sixth Circuit precedent that such reports must be furnished upon request, that had plaintiffs wanted the reports they would have requested them by name).

Likewise, the Fifth Circuit...