McKinnon v. Doyle Linda, Inc.

Full title: KEVIN McKINNON, Plaintiff, v. DOYLE LINDA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Jun 9, 2009

Case No. 09-CV-0178-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. Jun. 9, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 09-CV-0178-CVE-TLW.

June 9, 2009

OPINION AND ORDER

CLAIRE EAGAN, Chief Judge

Now before the Court is defendant Doyle Linda, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Request for Monetary Relief and Jury Demand (Dkt. # 8). Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting a claim arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that his employment was terminated for exercising rights conferred by ERISA. In his complaint, plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks actual and punitive damages. Defendant moves to strike plaintiff's jury demand and request for damages.

I.

Until March 19, 2009, plaintiff was employed by defendant Doyle Linda, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, doing business as Wayne's Body Shop. Dkt. # 2, at 1. Plaintiff was covered by an ERISA-governed pension plan, known as a Simple IRA. Id. Defendant would withhold money from plaintiff's paycheck and partially match plaintiff's contributions to his Simple IRA. Id. Early in 2009, plaintiff learned that funds had been withheld from his check, but not paid into his IRA. Id. at 2. Plaintiff brought the issue to defendant's attention and defendant deposited the funds into the IRA, without interest. Id. Plaintiff was subsequently discharged from the company. Id. On April 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that he was discharged for exercising his rights under ERISA. Id.

II.

Plaintiff claims that his employment was terminated for exercising his right to benefits to which he was entitled under ERISA. Under ERISA, it is unlawful for an employer to "discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1140. Violations of § 1140 take two forms: (1) "adverse action for exercising any right under a plan or ERISA" and (2) "interference with the attainment of any right under a plan or ERISA." Garratt v. Walker, 164 F.3d 1249, 1251 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff's remedies for an alleged violation of section 1140 are determined by reference to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).Millsap v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 368 F.3d 1246, 1247 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA provides the plan participant with his exclusive remedies for a § 510 violation."). Under § 1132(a)(3), the Court may "enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan" or award "other appropriate equitable relief." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The Supreme Court has stated that relief under this section is limited to traditional equitable remedies, such as injunctive relief, mandamus, and restitution, but a court does not have the authority to award compensatory damages.Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248, 263 (1993). Defendant moves to strike plaintiff's requests for a jury trial and for monetary damages.

A. Jury Demand

B. Monetary Relief

38 39see Zimmerman v. Sloss Equip., Inc.,72 F.3d 822829Adams v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. 149 F.3d 11561158-59see also Thomas v. Oregon Fruit Products Co., 228 F.3d 991996-97Sullivan v. LTV Aerospace Defense Co. 82 F.3d 12511257-59Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co. 861 F.2d 390394Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 761 F.2d 10031007In re Vorpahl695 F.2d 318320-21Calamia v. Spivey632 F.2d 12351237Wardle v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension,627 F.2d 820829see infra ¹ Millsap368 F.3d at 1250Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon498 U.S. 133144² See Lind v. Aetna Health, Inc., 466 F.3d 11951200Millsap368 F.3d at 1255-56³

1 Plaintiff argues that defendant's motion is moot because "the case is far from ready for a trail." Dkt. # 12. Plaintiff also contends that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) precludes this Court from granting defendant's motion to strike his jury demand because the Court is "required to grant the relief warranted by the evidence, regardless of whether plaintiff pleads for it in his complaint of not." Id. Both of plaintiff's arguments are without merit.

2 Plaintiff also argues that backpay may be restitutionary. However, the Tenth Circuit in Millsap stated that "[a] backpay claim is not restitutionary because . . . the nature of the remedy is to compensate and not to prevent unjust enrichment.Millsap, 368 F.3d at 1255 n. 9 (emphasis in original).

3 Plaintiff may refile his complaint if he can allege additional facts to support his request for backpay.

With regard to plaintiff's request for punitive damages, the Tenth Circuit has made clear that extra-contractual damages are not recoverable under ERISA. Zimmerman, 72 F. 3d at 827-29; see also Moffett v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 291 F. 3d 1227, 1234-35 (10th Cir. 2002); Sage v. Automation, Inc. Pension Plan Trust, 845 F.2d 885, 888 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1988) (punitive damages not an appropriate form of equitable relief). Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages or any other relief other than what is provided for under ERISA, and defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Doyle Linda, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Request for Monetary Relief and Jury Demand (Dkt. # 8) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate ERISA scheduling order is entered herewith.