Opinion
No. 09-12665.
March 5, 2010.
Elisa Smith Rives, Elisa S. Rives, LLC, Guntersville, AL, Mark D. Debofsky, Daley Debofsky Bryant, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jeffrey S. Russell, Darci F. Madden, Bryan Cave LLP, Robert J. Golterman, David W. Gearhart, Lewis Rice Fingersh LC, Neal F. Perryman, Saint Louis, MO, Joel E. Dillard, Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin McKnight Barclift, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 06-01564-CV-4-CLS.
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
This case presents facts and issues indistinguishable from those already considered and decided by this court in Gilley v. Monsanto Co., 490 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 2007). Robert Heptinstall and his co-plaintiffs, all former employees of Monsanto Company, Inc. (collectively "Heptinstall"), appeal the district court's dismissal of their action against the Monsanto Company, Inc. and several related entities. Heptinstall alleged that he was a vested member of the Monsanto Company Salaried Employees' Pension Plan ("the Plan") and that the Plan wrongfully denied him his vested benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. In Gilley, this court addressed a factually indistinguishable case involving the same Plan, the same method of calculating years of service, and a plaintiff-employee who started and stopped working for Monsanto at the same time as did Heptinstall (and brought by the same attorneys who represent Heptinstall), and held that the plaintiff-employee had not accumulated enough years of service, so his benefits had not yet vested. Gilley controls the outcome here. Heptinstall puts forth various arguments as to why Gilley should not apply, but they all in essence ask us to reconsider that decision, and one panel of this court may not overrule a prior panel's decision. Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997).
The district court dismissed Heptinstall's suit for lack of standing to sue under ERISA, but it actually should have dismissed for failure to state a claim. Heptinstall's claims are due to be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Accordingly, the district court's order dismissing Heptinstall's claim with prejudice is
AFFIRMED.