Filed: Apr. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2014
Summary: STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge. Defendants Union Bank Retirement Plan and Employee Deferred Compensation and Benefit Plans Administrative Committee's ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing on March 17, 2014, before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, presiding in Department 8 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. All appearances are as reflected in the record. The Court, having rea
Summary: STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge. Defendants Union Bank Retirement Plan and Employee Deferred Compensation and Benefit Plans Administrative Committee's ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing on March 17, 2014, before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, presiding in Department 8 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. All appearances are as reflected in the record. The Court, having read..
More
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.
Defendants Union Bank Retirement Plan and Employee Deferred Compensation and Benefit Plans Administrative Committee's ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing on March 17, 2014, before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, presiding in Department 8 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. All appearances are as reflected in the record.
The Court, having read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, all admissible evidence filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and argument of defense counsel and Pro Se Plaintiff Kenneth J. Bailey, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is Granted and that Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants.
The Court's ruling granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is based on the findings of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law set forth below, and as stated on the record at the March 17, 2014 hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
ISSUE NO. 1
Plaintiff's First Cause Of Action For Wrongful Denial Of Pre-Retirement Death Benefits As The Surviving Domestic Partner Of Decedent Linda Weeks Is Not Actionable.
Uncontroverted Facts Evidence
1. Since 1992, Plaintiff has worked for Union Exhibit 9 to DSOF, Pl's
Bank as a computer operator. Depo., pp. 36:5-37:8
2. Plaintiff, by his own description, is "a Exhibit 9 to DSOF, P1's
computer guy" and his "job is to monitor the Depo., pp. 38:14-39:17
system to make sure that any errors get
reported to systems people, managers, other
departments ... and monitor[s] to make sure
[Union Bank's computer system] stays up and
running, any errors [or] any glitches and
hardware [are] ... operating."
3. Plaintiff's job as a computer operator for Exhibit 9 to DSOF, P1's
Union Bank is "fairly technical." Depo., p. 42:7-11
4. On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint [Docket No. 1],
claim to Union Bank for Pre-Retirement ¶ 12
Death Benefits as the purported Surviving
Domestic Partner of decedent Linda Jean
Weeks.
5. The Plan Administrator "concluded that Exhibit D to Complaint,
[Plaintiff] d[id] not meet the definition of Letter dated April 17, 2012
Domestic Partner set forth in Section 1.17(a) from Union Bank Employee
or Section 1.17(b) of the Union Bank Deferred Compensation and
Retirement Plan ("the Plan"), and on that Benefits Plan Administrative
basis affirmed the denial of [his] claim." Committee ("Plan
Administrator")
6. The definition of and eligibility criteria for Exhibit 2 to DSOF, Plan
qualifying as a Domestic Partner for purposes Section 1.17
of retirement benefits under the Plan is set
forth in Section 1.17 of the Plan.
7. In relevant part, Section 1.17 of the Plan Exhibit 2 to DSOF, Plan
provides as follows: Section 1.17
1.17 Domestic Partner means:
(a) a person whose domestic
partnership with a Participant
is currently registered with a
governmental body pursuant
to a state or local law; or
(b) an individual (same or
opposite sex of the
Participant) age 18 or older
who lives with the Participant
in a long-term committed
relationship of indefinite
duration with all of the
following characteristics:
...
(6) for whom the Participant
files a Domestic Partner
Registration Form with
the Corporate Benefits
Department and the
Registration From is valid,
currently in force, and has
not been revoked.
8. The Summary Plan Descriptions for the Plan Exhibit 3 to DSOF, 2008
also advised Plan participants that in order for Summary Plan Description,
a Domestic Partner to qualify for Domestic p. 97
Partner benefits, the domestic partnership had
to be registered.
9. The Summary Plan Descriptions for the Plan Exhibit 10 to DSOF,
were distributed annually to eligible Plan Defendants' Response to
participants. Benefits-Eligible Employees Plaintiff's Non-Uniform
were provided a booklet entitled Your Interrogatory No. 5
Benefits Answer Book which contained
Summary Plan Descriptions of the ERISA
plans sponsored by Union Bank including but
not limited to the Plan.
10. Prior to 2006, the Your Benefits Answer Exhibit 10 to DSOF,
Book was distributed to Benefits-Eligible Defendants' Response to
Employees by hard copy. The Your Benefits Plaintiff's Non-Uniform
Answer Book included, inter alia, updates, Interrogatory No. 5
changes or revisions to relevant Summary
Plan Descriptions. Beginning on or about
October of 2006, and at all times thereafter,
the Your Benefits Answer Book, Summary
Plan Descriptions for all ERISA plans
sponsored by Union Bank including but not
limited to the Plan, and the Plan itself were
posted online and made available to Benefits-Eligible
Employees on the Company Intranet.
11. Plaintiff had full access to Union Bank's Exhibit 9 to DSOF, P1's
MyUBOC intranet site, which was later Depo., pp. 46:8-47:22
renamed UBox, whenever he desired
continuously since 2006.
12. Plaintiff visited the online MyUBOC and/or Exhibit 9 to DSOF, Pl's
UBox intranet sites which contain the Plan Depo., pp. 52:4-18 and 54:1-16
and Summary Plan Descriptions
approximately 100 times. Plaintiff testified
that he knew that benefits information has
been available on the MyUBOC or UBox
intranet sites since 2006.
13. On or about August of 1986, Plaintiff Compl., 10
contends that he began a romantic
relationship with his Union Bank coworker,
Linda J. Weeks.
14. Subsequently, in or about 1988, Plaintiff and Exhibit 9 to DSOF, Pl's
Ms. Weeks began living together until Ms. Depo., pp. 58:19-59:7;
Weeks died of metastatic colon cancer on July Compl. ¶ 11
14, 2011.
15. Despite their more than two decades long Compl., ¶ 10
relationship, Plaintiff and Ms. Weeks never
married.
16. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that Exhibit 9 to DSOF, Pl's
neither he nor Ms. Weeks registered their Depo., p. 117:10-19
purported domestic partnership with any
governmental entity or with the Corporate
Benefits Department of their common
employer, Union Bank.
17. On January 3, 2012, approximately six Exhibit A to Complaint
months after Ms. Weeks passed away,
Plaintiff submitted a claim for Pre-Retirement
Death Benefits based on his purported status
as a Surviving Domestic Partner of Ms.
Weeks.
18. By letter dated February 2, 2012, Corporate Exhibit B to Complaint
Benefits informed Plaintiff that his claim was
denied because his alleged domestic
partnership was not registered "in accordance
with either Section 1.17(a) or Section
1.17(b)(6)." In the same letter, Plaintiff was
informed that he could pursue an
administrative appeal of the claim denial and
that "in order for the Plan to honor [his]
claim, [he had to] provide documentation
evidencing registration of [his] domestic
partnership in accordance with Plan sections
1.17(a) or 1.17(b)(6)."
19. On February 25, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a Exhibit C to Complaint
one-page administrative appeal of his claim
denial which provided no evidence or indicia
that his alleged domestic partnership was
registered in conformity with the Plan's
requirements.
20. At a meeting held on March 21, 2012, the Exhibit D to Complaint
Plan Administrator undertook a full review of
the Plaintiff's administrative appeal of the
denial of his claim for Pre-Retirement Death
Benefits for Surviving Domestic Partner. The
Plan Administrator reviewed all information
and documents submitted by the Plaintiff as
part of his administrative appeal and upheld
the denial of his claim.
21. Because it was uncontroverted that Plaintiffs Exhibit D to Complaint
alleged domestic partnership was never
registered with a governmental body or
Corporate Benefits, the Plan Administrator
concluded that Plaintiff "did not meet the
definition of Domestic Partner set forth in
Section 1.17(a) or 1.17(b) of the Plan, and on
that basis affirmed the denial of [his] claim."
ISSUE NO. 2
Plaintiff's Second Cause Of Action For Alleged Breach Of Fiduciary Duties In Violation Of ERISA Is Without Merit And Not Actionable.307159566480528307159566
Uncontroverted Facts Evidence
1. The facts set forth in paragraphs See evidence cited in paragraphs
numbers 16 through 21 above are numbers 16 through 21, incorporated
incorporated herein by reference. herein by reference.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute. FED. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
2. Plaintiffs first cause of action for wrongful denial of ERISA plan benefits is not actionable.
3. Under Section 1.71(b)(6) of the plan, it is the "Participant" who wishes to provide survivor benefits to his/her domestic partner who must file the "Domestic Partner Registration Form with the Corporate Benefits Department...." The participant in this case is the decedent Linda Weeks and it is undisputed that she did not register any domestic partnership with the Plaintiff. Likewise, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs purported domestic partnership with decedent Linda Weeks was not registered with a governmental body pursuant to Section 1.17(a) of the Plan.
4. Plaintiff is not entitled to Domestic Partner Survivor Benefits under the Plan because he does not meet the definition of Domestic Partner set forth in the Plan. Granting retirement benefits under these circumstances in contravention of the express terms of the Plan is prohibited and would violate ERISA. See e.g., Rovira v. AT&T, 817 F.Supp. 1062, 1070 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (court held that a surviving lesbian life partner of a deceased plan participant and her children from a prior marriage did not even have a "colorable" claim because they did not meet the criteria for beneficiary status under the terms of the pension plan); Robinson v. New Orleans Employers ILA AFL-CIO Pension Welfare Vacation & Holiday Funds, 269 Fed. Appx. 516, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2008) (court upheld summary judgment in favor of the retirement plan because the plaintiff did not meet the plan's eligibility criteria for surviving spouse benefits).
5. Plaintiffs second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is also not actionable because there is no breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA where a plan administrator acts within its discretionary authority and properly denies a claim for benefits. Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., 150 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that because the plan administrator's "denial of benefits was correct ... [plaintiff] cannot recover compensatory damages for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty")
6. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the Plan Administrator properly denied the Plaintiff's claim for benefits and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
