Opinion
Civ. File No. 03-888 (PAM/RLE)
June 20, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are employee fringe benefit funds set up by various labor unions. Defendant Greenworks, Inc. is a landscaping business that, according to the Complaint, is bound by a collective bargaining agreement to contribute to the various Plaintiff funds. Plaintiffs contend that Greenworks has failed to make some of its required contributions. Plaintiffs therefore brought this action to collect the unpaid contributions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), 1145. Greenworks moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending that Plaintiffs do not have standing under ERISA to bring the action and that, therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit.
DISCUSSION
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is analyzed according to the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court must construe the allegations in the pleadings and make all reasonable inferences arising from the pleadings in favor of the non-moving party. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). The Court should not, however, "blindly accept the legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts." Id. A motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the [non-movants] can prove no set of facts which would entitle [them] to relief." Id.; see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) sets forth the "[p]ersons empowered to bring a civil action" under ERISA. The section states that a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, or the Secretary of Labor, may bring a civil lawsuit to enforce ERISA's requirements. Similarly, § 1132(e)(1) gives the district courts "exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary." Greenworks argues that these provisions are clear: only the Secretary, participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries may bring suit. Because Plaintiffs here are all employee benefit plans and are admittedly not participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries of the plans, Greenworks contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this action.
There is disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to whether a plan may bring suit under ERISA. The Eighth Circuit has not spoken on the issue. However, the majority of courts addressing the issue have held that the plan itself does not have standing to bring suit.
The Second Circuit has written the most thorough examination of the question. See generally Pressroom Unions — Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 700 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1983) [hereinafter Pressroom Unions]. In that case, the court held that § 1132(e) is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction such that ERISA actions may be maintained only by participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries. Id. at 893. As Plaintiffs do here, in Pressroom Unions the plan argued that the court should read § 1132(e) in conjunction with § 1132(d) to give plans standing to bring ERISA actions. Id. at 892. Section 1132(d) provides that "[a]n employee benefit plan may sue or be sued under this subchapter as an entity." According to the Second Circuit, this language is not inconsistent with the jurisdictional limits of § 1132(e), because § 1132(d) establishes only a plan's right to sued and be sued like a corporation or other legal entity. Id. at 893. "Affording plans the power to sue does not, however, imply that they may bring actions under ERISA; it merely authorizes suits to be brought by funds in other situations where there would properly be jurisdiction." Id. Courts in the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits have agreed. See Carpenters Dist. Council v. Bowlus Sch. Supply, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 1232, 1234 (W.D.Mo. 1989) (collecting cases).
Other courts, however, have compared the language of § 1132(e) with § 1132(d) and concluded that plans have standing to bring suits for a violations of ERISA. Coleman Clinic, Ltd. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 698 F. Supp. 740, 745 (C.D.Ill. 1988). In that case, the court determined that:
[w]hile 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) designates which persons have standing to sue, an employee benefit plan is not a "person." Thus, Congress devoted a different subsection, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d), to the question of a plan's standing as an entity.
Id. (emphases in original). Because § 1132(d) allows a plan to sue or be sued, the court found that a plan has standing to sue. Id.; see also Saramar Aluminum Co. v. Pension Plan for Employees of the Aluminum Indus. Allied Indus., 782 F.2d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 1986) (finding that plan necessarily includes persons authorized to act for plan and therefore comes within ERISA definition of fiduciary).
Only one reported decision in this District has addressed the issue involved here. Anoka Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Mutschler, 773 F. Supp. 158, 162 (D.Minn. 1991) (Doty, J.). The opinion, however, did not analyze the issue in depth and merely followed the majority rule that plans may not bring suit under ERISA. Id.
When deciding this issue, the Court must balance two competing considerations. First, the Court's limited jurisdiction must not be expanded absent clear direction from Congress. Rice v. R.R. Co., 66 U.S. (1 Black) 358, 374 (1861). Second, the Court has a duty to consider the parties' practical concerns. If the Court decides to dismiss the case, there is little doubt that Plaintiffs will file this same lawsuit tomorrow, naming their Boards of Directors or Trustees as plaintiffs. A determination that the Court lacks subject matter simply because the Plaintiffs are entities rather than persons administering those entities does not advance the resolution of the underlying dispute in any substantive way.
However, the dictates of the Constitution must overcome the practical inconveniences posed by dismissing this lawsuit. The language of ERISA is clear: this Court has jurisdiction only over lawsuits brought by participants in, fiduciaries for, or beneficiaries of ERISA plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Plaintiffs here are none of those things. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.
For the same reason, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs' alternative request to amend the Complaint to either include the proper parties or to make a claim under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, over which the Court undisputedly has jurisdiction. Because the Court has never had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, it has no power to allow Plaintiffs to amend. See Pressroom Unions, 700 F.2d at 893. Plaintiffs must instead file a new lawsuit, naming as plaintiffs a party authorized to bring suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) and (e).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Clerk Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED;
2. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign to the undersigned Judge any subsequently filed lawsuit involving substantially the same allegations as those made in this Complaint and also involving Defendant and the administrators of Plaintiff plans.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.