Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2034.
January 19, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the court is defendant The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company's ("NML") Motion for Summary Judgment (Document Nos. 44 and 45). Defendant Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates, II, P.C. ("ROA") filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion (Document Nos. 53 and 54). Plaintiff does not oppose NML's motion for summary judgment. After oral argument on January 11, 2005, and for the reasons set forth below, NML's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment will be granted in favor of NML on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint. As a consequence, the court will dismiss as moot NML's cross-claim against ROA for contribution and indemnity.
I. FACTS
The following facts are undisputed. On January 11, 1999, plaintiff Nancy Young was hired by Specialty Care Network ("SCN") as a medical assistant. In Spring 1999, defendant ROA purchased certain assets of SCN and ROA became plaintiff's employer. A new disability plan was implemented in early June, 1999. Employees had a thirty day period to submit an enrollment card to ROA which ROA then would forward to NML. ROA was responsible to explain this enrollment process to its employees, and to collect and return the enrollment cards to NML. NML never received a timely enrollment card from ROA with respect to plaintiff. II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Plaintiff contends that she timely submitted an enrollment card to ROA. ROA disputes this allegation contending that plaintiff did not timely return the enrollment card. This dispute is between plaintiff and ROA. As to NML, it is undisputed that NML did not receive an enrollment card from ROA for plaintiff in a timely manner.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The Supreme Court has ruled that Rule 56(c) requires "the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is a need for a trial — whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). An issue is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A factual dispute is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Id.
The moving party has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986). To defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party cannot rest on the pleadings, but rather must go beyond the pleadings and present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all inferences must be drawn in that party's favor.Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
III. DISCUSSION A. NML's Motion for Summary Judgment
In her Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserted a cause of action against NML alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA, citing Section 502, 29 U.S.C. § 1132. (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 23-27.) Pursuant to Section 1132, a civil action may be brought by a plan participant or a beneficiary to recover benefits due under the terms of a plan. NML asserts that plaintiff's claim fails because she cannot establish that she is a participant under the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). NML identified two prerequisites to plaintiff becoming a participant under the relevant plan: (1) completion of an enrollment card which was forwarded in a timely manner by ROA to NML; and (2) payment of premiums. As noted above, see infra 2 n. 1, while there is a dispute between ROA and plaintiff as to whether plaintiff timely completed an enrollment card, there is no dispute that NML did not receive an enrollment card from ROA for plaintiff in a timely fashion. Moreover, while some premiums were paid by plaintiff to NML while NML was investigating whether plaintiff had timely enrolled in the relevant plan, they were refunded when it was determined that she had not.
Plaintiff also alleged numerous claims against ROA.
Plaintiff admitted at the hearing that since there is no evidence that ROA timely submitted an enrollment card for plaintiff to NML, she does not have a cognizable claim against NML. ROA confirmed at the hearing that its objection to NML's Motion for Summary Judgment relates only to NML's request for summary judgment with respect to its cross-claim stated in its Answer. For these reasons, NML's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as unopposed, and judgment will be entered in favor of NML on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint.
B. NML's Cross-Claim
In its Answer, NML asserted a cross-claim against ROA. NML's cross-claim is for contribution and indemnity against ROA — a claim that is contingent upon NML being found liable to plaintiff. Since plaintiff's claim against NML has been dismissed, NML's cross-claim against ROA is dismissed as moot.See Jones v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2002 WL 1870469, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2002) (where employer not liable for alleged violation of ERISA, employer's cross-claim for contribution and indemnity against insurer dismissed as moot). See also USX Corp. v. Int'l Ins. Co., et al., 1996 WL 131030, at *6 (E.D. Pa. March 21, 1996) (when plaintiff's claims against defendant are dismissed, defendant's cross-claim and third-party complaint should be dismissed as moot); Alexander v. Hargrove, et al., 1994 WL 444728, at *6 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 1994) (cross-claim for contribution and indemnity dismissed as moot).
In its cross-claim, NML does not use the terms "contribution and indemnity." However, in Count I of its proposed amended cross-claim, it has labeled it as one of "Contribution and Indemnity" and the language is similar to the pending cross-claim.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED
1. NML's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 44) is GRANTED;
2. JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of NML and against plaintiff on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint; and
3. NML's cross-claim asserted in its Answer to the Complaint is DISMISSED as moot.