Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ibew Local Union 102 Welfare Fund, et al v. William Vincent A/K/A Bill Vincent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


May 4, 2011

IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 WELFARE FUND, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WILLIAM VINCENT A/K/A BILL VINCENT, AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE CONCEPTS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chesler, District Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [docket entry no. 7]. The Court has considered the papers filed by the parties and rules on the written submissions and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs oppose the application, asserting that their claim arises under ERISA's enforcement provisions since Plaintiffs are an ERISA benefit plan and its trustees, while Defendants are service providers to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend in their opposition papers that the Complaint set forth a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties under Title 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2). Unfortunately, as Defendants correctly point out, the Complaint alleges no facts which support an ERISA fiduciary claim as required under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).

Defendants are also correct that there is not even a colorable demonstration that jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") exists, or that the ERISA plan can sue Defendants as beneficiaries of the plan.

The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs are given leave to submit an amended Complaint properly setting forth factual support for their claims and subject matter jurisdiction within 14 days of the date of entry of this order.*fn1

For these reasons,

ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss [docket entry no. 7] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their Complaint within 14 days of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order.

STANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.