Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JUN 11 2001
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 00-1331
(D.C. No. 99-B-1791)
(D. Colo.)
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Stephen Simon appeals the district courts order dismissing his
claims brought pursuant to the civil enforcement provision of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a).
We exercise
Plaintiff refers in his appellate brief to state law, constitutional, and civil
rights claims. Although his complaint mentions these claims, they are not
supported by well-pleaded factual contentions and do not withstand dismissal.
See Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
-2-
2000. Under the circumstances, we will consider the merits, rather than dismiss
because of minor technical defects.
Union Pac. R.R. , 119 F.3d 847, 848 (10th Cir. 1997).
Turning to the merits, we review de novo an order dismissing a complaint
for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, using the same standard applied by the district court.
Ordinance 59 Assn v. United States Dept of Interior Secy
See
(10th Cir. 1998). We accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from
conclusory allegations, and view those facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
29 U.S.C. 1002(8). A
, 463
, 446 U.S.
359, 361 (1980). ERISAs enforcement provisions, crafted with such evident
care, indicate that Congress intended to limit the available remedies to those
included in the statute.
147 (1985). Plaintiff has not established that Congress intended to grant an
ERISA remedy to an assignee of an assignee of a plan participant. Accordingly,
we decline to expand the remedial and enforcement provisions. Because plaintiff
-4-
does not qualify as a party entitled to the ERISA civil enforcement provisions, he
does not have standing to bring this action. Therefore, the district courts
dismissal was correct. Other jurisdictions have also rejected on the same basis
similar claims brought by plaintiff.
F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000),
, 208
Simon v.
Belwith Intl, Inc. , No. 00-1680, 2001 WL 111651, at *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2001)
(unpublished); Simon v. Quaker Oats Employee Benefit Plan
WL 1657967, at *1 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000) (unpublished),
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-5-