Wilson v. Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Companies

Background

Bruce E. Wilson sued over pension benefits he accrued while working for Bank of America and its predecessor. He alleged that Fidelity, while providing services to plan fiduciaries, gave him grossly inaccurate pension estimates. His claims included an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and state-law claims for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

The order addressed two motions. First, Fidelity asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling that Wilson’s state-law claims were not preempted by ERISA. Second, the defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss claims two, three, four, and six in Wilson’s second amended complaint.

Fidelity’s Motion for Reconsideration

The court granted Fidelity’s motion for reconsideration because it concluded that it had overlooked relevant case law concerning ERISA preemption. The court explained that a state-law claim may be preempted when it has an impermissible connection with or reference to an ERISA-covered plan.

After reconsidering the issue, the court held that Wilson’s professional-negligence and negligent-misrepresentation claims were preempted. Those claims depended on the existence and terms of the pension plan because determining the benefits Wilson was entitled to and whether his reliance on Fidelity’s estimates was reasonable would require reference to the plan. The court therefore dismissed claims five and six on preemption grounds. The opinion’s analysis states that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because amendment would be futile; the conclusion states that claims five and six were dismissed without leave to amend.

Claims Against Fidelity, Bank of America, and the Benefits Committee

The court dismissed Wilson’s third claim against Fidelity for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary-duty requirements. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that Fidelity performed some fiduciary activities, but held that preparing and providing pension estimates was a ministerial, rather than fiduciary, function. Because the alleged breach concerned inaccurate estimates, the complaint did not state a fiduciary-duty claim against Fidelity. The court dismissed the third claim with prejudice in its analysis and, in the conclusion, dismissed it without leave to amend.

The court also dismissed Wilson’s second claim against Bank of America and the Benefits Committee. Wilson alleged that they failed to ensure Fidelity supplied accurate benefit information and failed to prevent computer errors. The court found that the complaint offered only speculation about the alleged computer glitch and did not plausibly show that Bank of America or the Committee failed to act prudently. The court also noted that Wilson did not allege that they relied on Fidelity’s estimates. The court dismissed the second claim with prejudice in its analysis and without leave to amend in the conclusion.

The court dismissed claim four, which Wilson had re-alleged under ERISA’s benefit-information provision to preserve it for appeal. The court stated that claim four was dismissed with prejudice in the body of the opinion and, in the conclusion, included it among the claims dismissed without leave to amend.

Other Ruling and Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of portions of the Los Angeles Superior Court file from Wilson’s divorce proceedings. It vacated the scheduled hearing because it found the motions suitable for decision without oral argument.

In its final order, the court granted Fidelity’s motion for reconsideration, granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and dismissed Wilson’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief without leave to amend. The order did not state a disposition for any other claim in the excerpt provided.