Wells v. Gannett Retirement Plan

D. Colorado

Wells v. Gannett Retirement Plan

385 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25970, 2005 WL 2034949

CourtDistrict Court, D. Colorado

DecidedMarch 22, 2005

DocketCIVA03-M-2671 OES

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 385 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (Wells v. Gannett Retirement Plan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. Gannett Retirement Plan, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25970, 2005 WL 2034949 (D. Colo. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDERS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

MATSCH, Senior District Judge.

This case is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. (“ERISA”). The plaintiffs are employees of defendant Gan-nett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”) and participants in Gannett’s defined benefit plan called the Gannett Retirement Plan (“Plan”). In their first and second claims for relief, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated ERISA’s accrual rules under 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H) because, under the Plan as amended effective January 1, 1998, the benefit accruals ceased, and the rates and/or amounts of benefit accruals are reduced, on account of a participant’s age. In their third claim for relief, the plaintiffs allege that the Plan fails to comply with the consent and disclosure rules under 29 U.S.C. § 1055(c) and Treas. Reg. § 1.411(a)-ll. The defendants have moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The ERISA provision relied on by the plaintiffs in their first and second claims provides:

Notwithstanding the preceding subpara-graphs, a defined benefit plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of this paragraph if, under the plan, an employee’s benefit accrual is ceased, or the rate of an employee’s benefit accrual is reduced, because of the attainment of any age.

29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H). At issue is the term “any age.” While the courts in Eaton v. Onan Corp., 117 F.Supp.2d 812 (S.D.Ind.2000) and Tootle v. ARINC, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 88 (D.Md.2004) found this term did not apply to those employees who have not reached normal retirement age, this court respectfully disagrees. The term is unambiguous, and there is no need to resort to legislative history or other sources for its interpretation. This provision applies to the attainment of “any age” and not just to the attainment of normal retirement age.

Although the plaintiffs allege they are Plan participants and have received *1103 benefit statements, these allegations are insufficient to support their third claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2055(c) and Treas. Reg. § 1.411(a)-ll. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief is denied. The defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted as to the plaintiffs’ third claim for relief and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDERS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

MATSCH, Senior District Judge.

This case is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. (“ERISA”). The plaintiffs are employees of defendant Gan-nett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”) and participants in Gannett’s defined benefit plan called the Gannett Retirement Plan (“Plan”). In their first and second claims for relief, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated ERISA’s accrual rules under 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H) because, under the Plan as amended effective January 1, 1998, the benefit accruals ceased, and the rates and/or amounts of benefit accruals are reduced, on account of a participant’s age. In their third claim for relief, the plaintiffs allege that the Plan fails to comply with the consent and disclosure rules under 29 U.S.C. § 1055(c) and Treas. Reg. § 1.411(a)-ll. The defendants have moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The ERISA provision relied on by the plaintiffs in their first and second claims provides:

Notwithstanding the preceding subpara-graphs, a defined benefit plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of this paragraph if, under the plan, an employee’s benefit accrual is ceased, or the rate of an employee’s benefit accrual is reduced, because of the attainment of any age.

29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H). At issue is the term “any age.” While the courts in Eaton v. Onan Corp., 117 F.Supp.2d 812 (S.D.Ind.2000) and Tootle v. ARINC, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 88 (D.Md.2004) found this term did not apply to those employees who have not reached normal retirement age, this court respectfully disagrees. The term is unambiguous, and there is no need to resort to legislative history or other sources for its interpretation. This provision applies to the attainment of “any age” and not just to the attainment of normal retirement age.

Although the plaintiffs allege they are Plan participants and have received *1103 benefit statements, these allegations are insufficient to support their third claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2055(c) and Treas. Reg. § 1.411(a)-ll. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief is denied. The defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted as to the plaintiffs’ third claim for relief and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25970, 2005 WL 2034949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-gannett-retirement-plan-cod-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack