Amador et al v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, No. 2:2014cv02329 - Document 25 (D. Kan. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 9/12/14. (meh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amador et al v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS EDWARD AMADOR, WAYNE WILKE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, Defendant. EDWARD AMADOR, WAYNE WILKE, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL G. MORASH, Defendant. Case No. 14-2329-RDR Case No. 14-2331-RDR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These two cases have been consolidated. In Case No. 14- 2329, plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, bring a claim against the Boliermaker-Blacksmith recover benefits plaintiffs, again from National the proceeding Pension Trust. pro se, Trust. In They Case assert a seek to No. 14-2331, claim against Michael G. Morash, a trustee of the Trust. They seek to remove Mohash as a trustee of the Trust as a result of the allegedly wrongful denial of benefits to plaintiffs. In each case, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs have Dockets.Justia.com filed a motion for summary judgment. I. The exact nature of the claims asserted by plaintiffs in these cases is not clear. The cases were originally filed by plaintiffs in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. They were later removed to this court by the Trust and Morash under the Employee Retirement Income (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 et seq. Securities Act of 1974 In the complaint in Case No. 14-2329, plaintiffs allege they entered into a trust agreement with the defendant Trust Aon or about August-October 1976.@ Plaintiffs further allege that the Trust breached the trust with plaintiff Amador on or about July 30, 2012, and with plaintiff Wilke on or about October 23, 2013. Trust caused specific monetary $214,479.72 plus interest. Plaintiffs contend that the damages in the amount of Plaintiffs assert they perfected a lien against the Trust on April 28, 2014. They allege that the Trust=s dishonor is intentional, the Trust=s breach is malicious, the Trust=s treason is insufferable, the Trust=s anti-trust is damaging, and the Trust=s dishonor is continuing. They assert that the Trust=s actions have caused them the loss of enjoyment of their retirement life. Thus, they seek an additional $1,600,000 in general punitive damages. In the complaint in Case No. 14-2331, plaintiffs allege 2 they contacted defendant Morash on or about April 2, 2014 with requests concerning the administration of their Trust benefits. They further allege that they received correspondence from an attorney that indicated it served as a response to plaintiffs= requests. Plaintiffs contend that the response was unsatisfactory and that defendant Morash failed to satisfy their requests. They assert that defendant Morash violated his duties as Trustee and is unfit for his office. They seek a court order relieving him of his duties as trustee. II. In the motions to dismiss, each defendant contends that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They argue that plaintiffs have failed to state a viable claim because they have asserted only a state law cause of action. The defendants assert that plaintiffs= claims are governed exclusively by ERISA, and thus, plaintiffs= state law claims are preempted by federal law. Plaintiff filed identical motions for summary judgment in these cases. The only difference between the two motions is the relief requested. In the motion against the defendant Trust, plaintiffs seek recovery of benefits. defendant trustee. Morash, plaintiffs seek In the motion against removal of Morash as the In each motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs assert 3 that A[t]his motion is based on the pleadings & exhibits filed in the various Plaintiffs courts, argue that together these with my documents supporting establish affidavit.@ that are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined and Athere is no defense to our suit.@ plaintiff Amador In an affidavit in support of the motion, avers that fiduciary duties as a trustee. defendant Morash breached his He further states that defendant Morash Aowes us his official bond@ due to his breach of fiduciary duties and his Aincompetence.@ III. The court will turn its attention to the defendants= motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be ATo survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must granted. contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A[T]he mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable claims.@ likelihood of mustering factual support for these Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). AThe court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) 4 motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff=s complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.@ Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). In determining whether a claim is facially plausible, the court must draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. All well-pleaded facts in the complaint are assumed to be true and are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118 (1990); Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984). Allegations that merely state conclusions, however, need not be accepted as true. legal See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies Aless stringent lawyers.@ standards Erickson v. than Pardus, formal 551 pleadings U.S. 89, drafted 94 by (2007). Nonetheless, a pro se litigant=s Aconclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.@ Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The court Awill not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff=s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff=s behalf.@ Whitney v. 1173B74 (10th Cir. 1997). 5 New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, IV. A reading of plaintiffs= complaints as well as the other pleadings that plaintiffs have filed reveals a lack of understanding of the law in general, and ERISA in particular. Plaintiffs have admitted that they are not Alicensed to practice law@ and Anot learned in law.@ However, they assert they have Aexpressed [the Trustee=s] wrongful act(s) in a variety of ways.@ Plaintiffs suggest they are entitled to benefits from the Trust because they have fulfilled their obligations under the Trust. They appear to be asserting only a state law claim of breach of contract in principles. each complaint based upon state law trust In response to the defendants= motions, they contend this case is not governed by ERISA. Plaintiffs= complaints fail to allege any facts, arguments or explanations that support the relief sought by them. noted previously, the nature of the plaintiffs is difficult to discern. that were attached to the claims asserted by As the In examining the documents complaints, the court can only determine that the claims arise from tax levies asserted by the Internal Revenue Service on the Trust. Letters attached to the complaint indicate that the plaintiffs were advised by the Trust that it had received the IRS opportunity to respond to them. levies and were given the Later letters sent by the Trust 6 to the plaintiffs indicated that the Trust had not received any information from plaintiffs. The complaints, however, fail to make any mention of the IRS tax levies or allege anything that the Trust did wrong in addressing these levies. As pointed out by the defendants and not disputed by the plaintiffs, the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is a trust fund established and jointly maintained by a labor union and contributing employers for the purpose of providing pension benefits to its participants and/or their beneficiaries in accordance with and subject to the terms of a written plan. As such, the Trust is an Aemployee benefit plan@ within the meaning of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. ' 1002(3). It is well-settled that federal law preempts state law causes of action asserting an improper denial of benefits under an ERISA regulated plan. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 62-64 (1987)(suit by beneficiary to recover benefits under ERISA plan falls directly under ERISA=s civil enforcement provisions, and is thus removable to federal court as pre-empted). wrongfully denied Plaintiffs= them allegations benefits to that which the they, Trust as has alleged beneficiaries, are entitled under the terms of the plan, is a claim for benefits arising under an ERISA governed plan. Thus, plaintiffs= claims for benefits are cognizable, if at all, only 7 under ERISA, which permits civil actions to be brought Aby a participant or beneficiary. . .to recover benefits due to him under the terms of the plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his right to future benefits under the terms of the plan. . . .@ Plaintiffs= allegedly failure breach of wrongfully to state a contract denied claim to upon 29 U.S.C. ' 1132(a)(1)(B). claims them for must which pension be relief benefits dismissed can be for granted because such claims are preempted by ERISA. Even if plaintiffs had brought their claims against the Trust under ERISA, their allegations are insufficient to state a claim for benefits under ERISA. Where the governing plan documents grants authority to the fiduciaries to determine a person=s entitlement to plan benefits such as in the instant case, a claim for recovery of denied benefits will lie only if the fiduciaries abused their discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989); Weber v. GE Group Life Assur. Co., 541 F.3d 1002, 1010 (10th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Trust=s denial of their pension benefits was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts which would support such a conclusion. 8 Moreover, exhaust his it is well administrative benefits claim in court. established remedies that before a plaintiff bringing an must ERISA See Lewis v. U.F.C.W. Dist. Union Local Two & Employers Pension Fund, 273 Fed.Appx. 765, 767 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing McGraw v. Prudential Ins. Co., 137 F.3d 1253, 1263 (10th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiffs have made no allegations that they exhausted the available administrative remedies prior to filing these actions. Therefore, plaintiffs= allegations fail to state a viable claim for benefits even under the exclusive ERISA remedy for recovery of such benefits. Plaintiffs= claims against defendant Morash also fail to state a plausible claim. Plaintiffs= complaint against Morash states only conclusory allegations of wrongdoing without factual basis in support. that explain what Plaintiffs failed to articulate any facts Morash plaintiffs or the Trust. did to violate ERISA and harm the Accordingly, plaintiffs= allegations in this case also fail to state a viable claim under ERISA. Thus, the court must grant defendants= motions and dismiss the claims of plaintiffs in Nos. 14-2329 and 14-2331 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. V. With this decision, the court need not consider the other arguments raised by the parties including plaintiffs= motion for summary judgment. In regard to the motions for summary judgment, the procedurally court and notes legally. that The these court motions would note fail both that these motions fail to assert any facts or citations to the record as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), 56(c)(1) and D.Kan.Rule 56.1(a). Without any such designated facts or citations to the record, the court would be forced to deny these motions on procedural grounds. The court further notes that plaintiffs have failed to provide any valid or appropriate legal support for its motions. In making these statements, the court recognizes that the pleadings of pro se litigants are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, pro se parties are still required to follow the rules of procedure that govern other litigants. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). It is not the proper function of this court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. F.2d at 1110. Hall, 935 In sum, the court would be forced to deny these motions if we were to consider them. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to dismiss by defendants Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (No. 14-2329) and Michael G. Morash (No. 14-2331) be hereby granted. Plaintiffs= complaints in these cases are hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of September, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas. s/RICHARD D. ROGERS Richard D. Rogers UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
