Wilson v. North American Philips Lighting Corporation

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; Alternatively, to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Adminstrative Prerequisites

M.D. Tenn.October 11, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JOHN A. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN PHILIPS LIGHTING CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-00073 Judge Sharp DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER RULE 12(B)(6) TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; ALTERNATIVELY, TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES Defendant, Philips Lighting North America (incorrectly identified by Plaintiff as “North American Philips Lighting Corporation”), hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”, by and through its attorneys, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., hereby moves this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss with prejudice the Complaint of John A. Wilson, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”, for the following reasons: 1. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, filed a Complaint against Defendant, which was the administrator of an employee welfare benefit plan (“the Plan”) offered to Plaintiff. See Document No. 1-3, Plaintiff’s Complaint). 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide him with a “severance package” upon the termination of his employment. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 18. Plaintiff appears1 to assert a claim against Defendant for breach of an “agreement” based upon the denial of severance benefits. (Id., ¶ 11, 18). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to interpret given Plaintiff’s pleading style, which is inconsistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10. For example, while Plaintiff asserts that a contract existed between the parties, he also seeks recovery of punitive damages, which is inconsistent with a breach of contract claim. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Plaintiff’s claim(s) against Defendant are with regard to a distribution of severance benefits pursuant to a Plan administered by Defendant. Case 2:16-cv-00073 Document 5 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 19 2 3. Reading Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting state common law claims, the Complaint is completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.”); Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004) (holding “any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Briscoe v. Fine, 444 F.3d 478, 498-500 (6th Cir. 2006). 4. Alternatively, further reading Plaintiff’s Complaint under ERISA, dismissal is also necessary because Plaintiff failed to allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to the Plan before filing suit. Weiner v Klais & Co, Inc, 108 F.3d 86, 91 (6th Cir.1997) abrogated on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (“the administrative scheme of ERISA requires a participant to exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to commencing suit”). a. Here the Plan expressly provides an internal, administrative review process. (Exhibit B).2 Because Plaintiff did not allege exhaustion in the Complaint, dismissal is appropriate. See e.g., Hagen v. VPA, Inc., 428 F.Supp.2d 708, 713-714 (W.D. Mich. 2006) (granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff “did not allege exhaustion in his complaint); 2 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court “primarily considers the allegations in the complaint, although matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint also may be taken into account.” Freeman Mgmt. Corp. v. Shurgard Storage Ctrs., LLC, 461 F.Supp.2d 629, 632 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2006) (quoting Nieman v. NLO, Inc., 108 F.3d 1546, 1554 (6th Cir. 1997)). Additionally, “the court may consider documents introduced by the defendant, even if they were not attached to the initial complaint, so long as they were referenced in the complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. Such documents include ERISA plan documents. See Weiner 108 F.3d at 88 (Court considered ERISA plan documents submitted by defendant with motion to dismiss where plaintiff’s claims were based on rights under the plan). Case 2:16-cv-00073 Document 5 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 20 3 Poniewierski v Unum Life Assur. Co. of Am., Inc., No. CIV. 05-72431, 2006 WL 2385045, at *4 (E.D.Mich. 2006)(same). WHEREFORE, as more fully set forth in the contemporaneously filed Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and grant such other relief to Defendant as this Court deems appropriate. Dated: October 11, 2016 Respectfully submitted, s/ William S. Rutchow William S. Rutchow, TN Bar No. 017183 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. SunTrust Plaza 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200 Nashville, TN 37219-2446 Telephone: 615.254.1900 Facsimile: 615.254.1908 Email: william.rutchow@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Philips Lighting North America Corporation Case 2:16-cv-00073 Document 5 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 21 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 11th day of October 2016, the foregoing was filed electronically with the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following: W.I. Howell Acuff Acuff & Acuff 101 S. Jefferson Avenue Cookeville, TN 38501 William S. Rutchow 26504189.1 Case 2:16-cv-00073 Document 5 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 22