Opinion
Case No. 2-02CV1378
October 16, 2003
J. Timothy McDonald, Esq. ROGERS HARDIN, NE ATLANTA, GA, Ms. Janet Hugie Smith, Esq., RAY QUINNEY NEBEKER, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Mr. Vincent C Rampton, Esq., JONES WALDO HOLBROOK McDONOUGH, SALT LAKE CITY, UT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.INTRODUCTION
Pending before the court for decision are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), Defendants seek to dismiss Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") on the grounds that it is an improper party. Defendants also move for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim.
Defendant, the Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan (the "Plan") is a disability and survivorship plan alleged by Plaintiff to have been created, maintained and operated by Delta, and qualifying as an employee welfare benefit plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The Plan provides employees of Delta with disability benefits. Plaintiff applied for, and was denied, long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff has filed this action pursuant to the provisions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1131, et seq., seeking judicial review of the decision denying her long-term disability benefits.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) is treated as a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)." Mock v. T.G. Y. Stores Co., 971 F.2d 522, 528 (10th Cir. 1992). When a motion to dismiss is filed, the burden is on the movant to prove that the non-movant can prove no set of facts in support of its claim which would entitle it to relief. Shoultz v. Monfort of Colorado. Inc. 754 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1044 (1986); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). The court is to presume, for purposes of considering the motion, that all well-pleaded allegations by the non-movant are true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the non-movant. Lafoy v. HMO Colorado. 988 F.2d 97 (10th Cir 1993): Miree v. DeKalb County, Ga., 433 U.S. 25 (1977). Legal conclusions, deductions, and opinions couched as facts are, however, not given such a presumption. Mitchell v. King. 537 F.2d 385 (10th Cir. 1976); Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1984).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that Delta is not a proper defendant because it is neither the administrator nor the fiduciary of the Plan. They assert that the Plan is a separate legal entity and the Administrative Committee of Delta is a separate entity which administers the Plan and serves as the named fiduciary.
As Delta acknowledges, "there is a split between the courts that never permit employers to be named as defendants in benefit claims and those who do if the employer controlled the plan." (Mem. Supp. at p. 6 n. 5). SeeHemphill v. Unisys Corp., 855 F. Supp. 1225, 1233-34 (D. Utah 1994) (noting disagreement among courts as to whether an employer may be a proper defendant). Defendants submit that they have not located any published Tenth Circuit authority directly addressing the issue. The court, likewise, has found no controlling authority. Defendants citeMoore v. Berg Enterprises. Inc., No. 98-40080, 1999 WL 1063823 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 1999), for the proposition that an employer/plan sponsor was not an appropriate defendant on a § 1132(c)(1) claim. On motions for summary judgment the court in that case found that the actions of the employer complained about did not bestow fiduciary status on the employer. The present matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss for which a different standard of review applies. In any event,Moore is not binding precedent.
In the absence of controlling authority and for purposes of this motion, the court cannot conclude that Delta is not a proper defendant. Persuasive authority supports naming the employer as a defendant if the plaintiff alleges that the employer controlled or influenced the administration of the plan. See, e.g, Garren v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 114 F.3d 186, 187 (11th Cir. 1997)("[t]he proper party defendant in an action concerning ERISA benefits is the party that controls administration of the plan); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 266 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 826 (1988) (" [u] nless an employer is shown to control administration of a plan, it is not a proper party defendant on an action concerning benefits").
The complaint alleges that the Plan was created, and is maintained, operated and administered by Delta. (Compl. at ¶ 3). See also Compl. at ¶¶ 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, 37 (generally alleging Delta's participation and control). Although, the Plan provides that "operation and administration of the Plan . . . the exclusive power to interpret it, and the responsibility for carrying out its provisions are vested in the Administrative Committee of at least three members, which Committee shall be the Administrator of the Plan. . . ." (Mem. Supp. Ex. A). The Plan also provides Delta's Board of Directors with authority to appoint and remove Administrative Committee members. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the "absolute power to control staffing of the Administrative Committee translates into control of the administration of the Plan." (Mem. Opp'n at p. 8).
Generally, in deciding a motion to dismiss the court may only consider facts alleged within the complaint. If matters outside the complaint are presented and not excluded, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. There are two exception to this rule, one of which is that "`the district court may consider documents referred to in the complaint if the documents are central to the plaintiff's claim and the parties do not dispute the documents' authenticity.'" County of Santa Fe v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M., 311 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir 2002) (quoting Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2001), cert, denied. 537 U.S. 1066 (2002)). Such appears to be the case here.
VI. CONCLUSION
Under the relevant standard of review, and for purposes of this motion, the court concludes that Defendants have failed in their burden of proof and persuasion as the moving party. For the reasons stated, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Delta as a party defendant is DENIED. Defendants' unopposed motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer and Counterclaim is GRANTED.