IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 11, 2010
KAREN CAMESI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Bissoon United States Magistrate Judge
Magistrate Judge Bissoon
For the reasons that follow, Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 275) Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint will be granted.
Counts II and III state claims under ERISA for failure to keep accurate records and for breach of fiduciary duty. See Am. Compl. (Doc. 266) at Counts II, III. The instant decision comes on the heels of a Memorandum and Order in Henderson v. UPMC, et al., Civil Action No. 09-187J (W.D. Pa.) (Bissoon, M.J., presiding), dismissing nearly identical claims brought under the same ERISA plans ("the Plans"). See Doc. 51 in Henderson.
Defendants here have made the same arguments for dismissal as in Henderson, and Plaintiffs‟ arguments in opposition likewise are materially similar. The Court sees no reason to rehash its analyses in Henderson, and they hereby are incorporated by reference as if fully restated in this Order. In sum, Defendants violated neither their recording nor fiduciary duties under ERISA because those obligations related to "Compensation" that was paid, not hours allegedly worked by Plaintiffs but not paid. See Doc. 51 in Henderson at 6-7.
The only other argument advanced by Plaintiffs is that dismissal of their ERISA claims would be premature because questions of fact remain regarding what constitutes "compensation" under the Plans. See Pls.‟ Opp‟n Br. (Doc. 320) at 9-10. The relevant Plan documents are in the record, however, and no discoverable facts can modify the Court‟s interpretation. See Doc. 51 in Henderson at n.3; see also Mathews v. ALC Partner, Inc., 2009 WL 3837249, *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2009) ("[a] plaintiff's reference in a complaint to an ERISA "plan‟ is sufficient reference to the plan documents such that the plan documents, if attached in the defendant‟s motion to dismiss, may be considered by the [c]court in ruling on the motion to dismiss"); compare also Pls.‟ Opp‟n Br. at 9 (agreeing that Defendants‟ arguments "relate to what constitutes "compensation‟ under the terms of the [P]lans") with Chiles v. Ceridian Corp., 95 F.3d 1505, 1511 (10th Cir. 1996) (terms of unambiguous ERISA plan are interpreted as matter of law) (citation omitted).
No amount of additional inquiry can save Plaintiffs‟ ERISA claims, and, for the same reasons as in Henderson, Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 275) is GRANTED, and Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.