Bey v. Board of Trustees of the Carpenters and Joiners Defined Contribution Plan

Background

Zar El Javon-Martise Thomas Bey, allegedly acting as an authorized agent for Javon Martise Thomas, brought the action against the Board of Trustees of the Carpenters and Joiners Defined Contribution Plan. Bey claimed that the Board fraudulently removed $28,153,256 from a private trust account maintained at a Federal Reserve Bank. The filings appeared to suggest claims based on theft, fraud, breach of contract, and entitlement to Plan benefits.

The allegations referred to the Plan’s Summary Annual Report, which stated that the Plan had total assets of $674,998,141 in 2021. Bey appeared to treat that amount as being in Javon Martise Thomas’s personal account and alleged that the Board had removed $28,153,256 without permission. The Board argued that the report described the entire Plan, not Thomas’s individual retirement funds. According to the Board’s motion papers, Thomas’s personal account contained $4,822, and the $28,153,256 amount corresponded to Plan expenses paid in 2021.

The Board removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss. Bey and Javon Martise Thomas did not respond to the motion, file documents, or appear in the case. Bey was proceeding without a lawyer; the opinion does not state that Thomas was represented.

Failure to Prosecute

The court treated the failure to respond to the motion to dismiss as a waiver and voluntary dismissal of the claims. It held that Bey and Thomas’s failure to respond required dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court nevertheless considered the Board’s other arguments for completeness.

ERISA Preemption and Exhaustion

The court considered the Summary Annual Report because it was a document necessarily embraced by the pleadings. It found that the exact claims were unclear but concluded that, assuming claims had been brought, they were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The court explained that ERISA broadly replaces state laws relating to employee benefit plans. It held that any state-law claims for theft, fraud, or breach of contract would relate to the administration of the Plan and therefore were preempted. It also held that any claim for Plan benefits was subject to ERISA’s civil-enforcement provisions, which the court described as the exclusive means for a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits under an ERISA plan.

The court further held that the claims would be dismissed because the filings did not show that Bey or Thomas had pursued the Plan’s internal claim procedures. The Eighth Circuit recognizes a court-created requirement that an ERISA plaintiff generally exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, subject to narrow exceptions. The court found no allegation showing exhaustion or an applicable exception.

Disposition

The court concluded that Bey failed to prosecute the claims, that all potential claims were preempted by ERISA, and that the ERISA exhaustion requirement had not been adequately pleaded. The order granted the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Judge John R. Tunheim directed that judgment be entered accordingly.