DuBuske v. PepsiCo, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-11618
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In DuBuske v. PepsiCo, Inc., Judge Briccetti partly granted and partly denied reconsideration, vacated the judgment, and allowed a limited amended complaint.
The plaintiffs may file a limited amended complaint concerning ERISA Section 205(d), while their ERISA Section 203 claims and related fiduciary-duty claim remain dismissed. The defendants may respond to the amended complaint.
What happened
In DuBuske v. PepsiCo, Inc., the plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal employee-benefits law. They argued that the court had overlooked allegations concerning a provision about required benefit forms and had failed to consider their request to amend the complaint.
The court found that the original complaint did not clearly identify an independent claim under that provision. It also noted that the plaintiffs had previously been given an opportunity to amend but chose to rely on their original complaint. The court nevertheless decided to vacate the judgment and allow a limited amended complaint.
Judge Briccetti granted the reconsideration motion in part and denied it in part. The plaintiffs may amend only to plead claims under the specified benefit-form provision; their claims under the anti-forfeiture provision and their related fiduciary-duty claim remain dismissed. The case was reopened.
The detailed version
- DuBuske v. PepsiCo, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-11618
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
William DuBuske, Michael Duchaine, and Gary Maynard sued PepsiCo, Inc., the Employee Benefits Board, the PepsiCo Administration Committee, and John/Jane Does ##1–50. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including claims concerning ERISA Section 203(a), the anti-forfeiture provision, and ERISA Section 205(d). They also asserted a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.
The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and entered judgment. The plaintiffs then moved to alter or amend the judgment, obtain relief from it, and seek reconsideration of the earlier decision. Alternatively, they asked for permission to file an amended complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is available when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Such motions are narrowly applied and may not be used to present new facts, issues, or arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Court’s analysis
The plaintiffs argued that the court had failed to consider allegations supporting an independent claim under ERISA Section 205(d). The court agreed that its earlier decision had not addressed such a claim because the complaint did not clearly identify Section 205(d) as an independent basis for relief. The court stated that the complaint was unclear and that the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged this problem.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it had overlooked their request to amend. Before deciding the original motion to dismiss, the court had given the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint or rely on the original complaint. The plaintiffs chose to rely on the original complaint. Their request to amend also appeared in one sentence near the end of their opposition brief.
The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to vacate the judgment and permit an amended complaint. It reasoned that allowing amendment would not prejudice the defendants and would permit the claims to be resolved on the merits. The court did not decide that a Section 205(d) claim would succeed, and it stated that the defendants could move to dismiss an amended complaint on the ground that such a claim would be futile.
The court did not reconsider its conclusions about ERISA Section 203. The plaintiffs’ first and second claims concerning that provision remained dismissed. Their third claim, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, also remained dismissed because it depended on applying the Section 203 anti-forfeiture rule. The amended complaint could not relitigate those issues.
Disposition
The court’s conclusion states that the motion for reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part. The court vacated the September 25, 2019 judgment, granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, and reopened the case. The amended complaint could plead claims concerning ERISA Section 205(d) only and had to include all information necessary to support those claims. The plaintiffs were ordered to file it by November 21, 2019, and the defendants were ordered to respond by December 5, 2019.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.