Tarquino v. Muse Enterprises Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-03434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tarquino v. Muse Enterprises, Judge Torres denied reconsideration of the ruling that the plaintiffs’ employee-benefits claims were time-barred.
Irene Tarquino, David Tarquino, and Noelia Tarquino’s request to reconsider the ruling that their ERISA claims were time-barred; the motion was denied.
What happened
In Tarquino v. Muse Enterprises Inc., Irene Tarquino, David Tarquino, and Noelia Tarquino asked the court to reconsider an earlier ruling about their claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal employee-benefits law.
The plaintiffs argued that their claims became timely later than the court had found and that a different deadline should apply to their fiduciary-duty claims. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the plaintiffs’ receipt of tax forms triggered the deadline and that their claims were already too late under either deadline.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Tarquino v. Muse Enterprises Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03434
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Irene Tarquino, David Tarquino, and Noelia Tarquino sued Muse Enterprises, Inc., two Muse pension plans, and Michelle Andrews. The plaintiffs asserted claims for benefits and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The defendants previously moved to dismiss. In a July 9, 2020 order, the court granted that motion in part and denied it in part, including holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. That rule requires the moving party to identify controlling law or factual matters that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the decision. The court explained that reconsideration is narrowly limited and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments already considered.
Analysis
The plaintiffs first argued that their claims did not begin to accrue until they knew or should have known that their classification as independent contractors would affect their pension benefits. The court rejected that argument because courts in the circuit had held that receiving a Form 1099 from an employer triggers the limitations period, regardless of the worker’s knowledge of the effect of the classification on pension status.
The plaintiffs next argued that the court had applied the wrong limitations period to their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and should have applied 29 U.S.C. § 1113. The court said that the claims were untimely even under that provision. It found that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the alleged breach when they received Forms 1099 showing that the defendants classified them as independent contractors. The court stated that the claims accrued in 2002 for Irene Tarquino, 2009 for David Tarquino, and 2012 for Noelia Tarquino. Their respective deadlines therefore ended in 2005, 2012, and 2015. Because the plaintiffs filed the action in 2019, the court concluded that their ERISA claims were time-barred. The opinion also stated that the plaintiffs did not allege fraudulent concealment.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 87. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.