Theriot v. Bldg. Trades United Pension Trust Fund

394 F.Supp.3d 597

Deborah THERIOT

v.BUILDING TRADES UNITED PENSION TRUST FUND

CIVIL ACTION No. 18-10250

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed July 17, 2019

Perry Roger Staub, Jr., Michael Joseph Catalano, Taggart Morton, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Deborah Theriot.

Julie Marie Richard-Spencer, Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC, Metairie, LA, Yingtao Ho, Pro Hac Vice, Previant Law Firm S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund.

SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS

LANCE M. AFRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant The Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund (the "Pension Fund").¹ Also made defendant is the Pension Fund's Board of Trustees (the "Board of Trustees").² The Pension Fund moves to dismiss plaintiff Deborah Theriot's ("Theriot") claims against it brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Theriot asserts her claims in her capacity as the court-appointed independent administrator of the Succession of Audrey L. Hamann.³ Theriot filed a response in opposition to the Pension Fund's motion,⁴ and the Pension Fund filed a reply.⁵ The parties also submitted supplemental briefing⁶ pursuant to this Court's order.⁷

The Pension Fund filed its motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting in part that Theriot failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.⁸ Specifically, the Pension Fund argues that Theriot does not have standing under ERISA to assert her claims and that she has failed to exhaust available administrative procedures.⁹ The Pension Fund also argues, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), that this district is not the proper venue for Theriot's lawsuit.¹⁰ For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, as stated herein.

I.

The Court must first address the issue of standing. Along with its motion, the Pension Fund attached a number of exhibits that Theriot references in her complaint. At a May 29, 2019 status conference, the parties agreed that the Court may look beyond the pleadings and consider the exhibits when considering the motion.¹¹ Theriot also attached exhibits in response to the motion to dismiss.¹²

A.

The Court finds that the following facts related to Theriot's standing under ERISA are undisputed:

Robert A. Hamann ("Mr. Hamann") participated in a pension plan ("the Plan") sponsored and underwritten by the Pension Fund and administered through the Board of Trustees.¹³ Mr. Hamann died on December 30, 2016, and his wife, Audrey L. Hamann ("Mrs. Hamann") became entitled to post-retirement survival benefits by the express terms of the Plan.¹⁴

On January 11, 2017, Mrs. Hamann submitted her application for the post-retirement survivor benefit to the Pension Fund.¹⁵ The application form allows the applicant to choose how she will receive her benefits: as a monthly annuity or as a lump sum equivalent.¹⁶ The benefit illustration sheet explains:

You, the survivor, may instead elect to receive the benefit as an actuarially equivalent lump sum. If you initially elect a monthly benefit payment, you may elect at any time in the future to receive the remainder of the Post-Retirement Survivor benefit as a lump sum.¹⁷

Mrs. Hamann elected to receive her benefits under the monthly annuity option.¹⁸

In a letter dated March 1, 2017, Mrs. Hamann received notice that her application for survivor benefits had been approved and that she would receive monthly payments of $693.63.¹⁹ The letter also advised Mrs. Hamann that she could elect to receive her benefits in a lump sum "at any time in the future."²⁰ That same month, the Pension Fund mailed Mrs. Hamann a change form whereby she could convert her monthly benefits into a lump sum payment.²¹ The Pension Fund instructed Mrs. Hamann to return the change form "by April 5, 2017 to receive the payment on May 1, 2017."²² Mrs. Hamann completed and returned the change form, which the Pension Fund received on April 4, 2017.²³ Mrs. Hamann unfortunately passed away on April 5, 2017.²⁴

After Mrs. Hamann's death, her daughter, Theriot, inquired about the lump sum payment.²⁵ The Pension Fund sent Theriot a letter dated April 18, 2017 explaining that she was not entitled to the lump sum payment:

Plan documents state that the Joint and Survivor benefit is payable for the survivor's lifetime. Therefore[,] the payment dated April 1, 2017 was the final payment Mrs. Hamann was eligible to receive from this Fund. The paperwork Mrs. Hamann submitted for a Lump Sum payment was for May 1, 2017 and would not be payable due to the fact that she was not living at that time.²⁶

B.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has "recognized that standing is essential to the exercise of jurisdiction and is a ‘threshold question...[that] determin[es] the power of the court to entertain the suit.’ " Coleman v. Champion Int'l Corp./Champion Forest Prods. , 992 F.2d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ).

Although the Pension Fund filed its motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the standing inquiry is more appropriately considered under Rule 12(b)(1). The Pension Fund's "argument that [Theriot] lacks standing to bring suit under ERISA is properly considered as a jurisdictional attack under Rule 12(b)(1)." Feingerts v. Feingerts , No. 15-2895, 2016 WL 2744812, at *7 (E.D. La. May 10, 2016) (citing Piro v. Nexstar Broad, Inc. , No. 11-2049, 2012 WL 2089596, at *3 (W.D. La. Apr. 10, 2012) ; Cobb v. Cent. States , 461 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2006) ; see also Lee v. Verizon Comms., Inc. , 837 F.3d 523, 533 (5th Cir. 2016) ("As a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, standing under ERISA § 502(a) is subject to challenge through Rule 12(b)(1)."); Mem'l Hermann Health Sys. v. Pennwell Corp. Med. & Vision Plan , No. H-17-2364, 2017 WL 6561165, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) (recognizing that the Fifth Circuit treats standing under ERISA as a jurisdictional matter and applying Rule 12(b)(1) ); James v. La. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund , 766 F. Supp. 530, 531 (E.D. La. 1991) (Feldman, J.) (considering whether the plaintiff had standing under ERISA in response to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ).

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), "[a] case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). "When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits." Id.

When applying Rule 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Spotts v. United States , 613 F.3d 559, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2010).

"When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the Court first considers whether the defendant has made a ‘facial’ or a ‘factual’ attack upon the complaint." Magee v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. , No. 17-8063, 2018 WL 501525, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018) (Vance, J.) (citing Paterson v. Weinberger , 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981) ). "A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is factual rather than facial if the defendant submits affidavits, testimony, or other evidentiary materials." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Superior MRI Servs., Inc. v. Alliance Healthcare Servs., Inc. , 778 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2015) ). "When a defendant makes a factual attack on the complaint, the plaintiff is ‘required to submit facts through some evidentiary method and has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court does have subject matter jurisdiction.’ " Id. (quoting Paterson , 644 F.2d at 523 ). "In the case of a facial attack, the court ‘is required to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.’ " Id. (quoting Paterson , 644 F.2d at 523 ). "Ultimately, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief." Ramming , 281 F.3d at 161 (quoting Home Builders Ass'n , 143 F.3d at 1010 ).

C.

Standing under ERISA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), is limited to participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries. Coleman , 992 F.2d at 533.²⁷ The Fifth Circuit strictly construes the class of claimants enumerated in § 1132(a). Cobb , 461 F.3d at 635 ; Coleman , 992 F.2d at 534 ("[O]ur previous decisions have hewed to a literal construction of § 1132(a).").²⁸

A beneficiary is "a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8). "In order to qualify as a beneficiary, an individual must have a ‘reasonable or colorable claim to benefits.’ " Feingerts , 2016 WL 2744812, at *7 (quoting Crawford v. Roane , 53 F.3d 750, 754 (6th Cir. 1995) ); see also Cobb , 461 F.3d at 635–36 (holding that, to have standing as a beneficiary under ERISA, a plaintiff must show a designation of beneficiary status by a participant or the terms of the plan and a colorable entitlement to benefits).

Theriot argues that as administrator of Mrs. Hamann's estate, she has standing to bring these claims on Mrs. Hamann's behalf. Specifically, Theriot asserts that sh...