Firestone v. Fed. Ret. Thrift Inv. Bd.
375 F. Supp. 3d 102
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Cai-Yen Firestone alleges Bernard Hsieh completed Form TSP-3 naming her 100% beneficiary of his Thrift Savings Plan before his death; the form in the record shows one witness (Carolan Bontje) did not date her signature on page one.
- FRTIB/TSP notified that the form "unable to process" because a required witness date was missing; they and Hsieh's surviving spouse Melissa Wang moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
- Statute and regulation (5 U.S.C. § 8424(d); 5 C.F.R. § 1651.3(c) as in effect 2014–2017) require a signed and properly dated beneficiary form received by the TSP record keeper before death; spouse is next in precedence if no valid designation.
- Plaintiff contends the form was properly signed and dated and urges equitable/substantial-compliance principles; defendants maintain strict compliance is required and the undated witness signature invalidates the designation.
- The district court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8477(e) because Firestone failed to establish beneficiary status and alternatively granted summary judgment to defendants on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Firestone is a statutory "beneficiary" entitled to bring claims under 5 U.S.C. § 8477(e) | Hsieh properly designated Firestone on Form TSP-3; witness intent/substantial compliance cures any minor defect | Form required two witnesses to sign and properly date the form; one witness omitted the date on page one so designation is invalid | Not a beneficiary; jurisdiction under § 8477(e) lacking; claim dismissed |
| Whether TSP may honor a beneficiary designation that was not strictly compliant (substantial compliance/equitable relief) | Substantial compliance or equitable principles should validate the designation given decedent's intent and later witness affidavit | Statute/regulation mandate strict compliance; FRTIB lacks discretion to disregard invalid form; no basis to import ERISA substantial-compliance doctrine | Strict compliance required; substantial-compliance doctrine not applied; designation invalid |
| Whether Firestone can pursue breach-of-contract (third-party beneficiary) claim tied to TSP procedures | Firestone asserts she is intended third-party beneficiary of contract between Hsieh and FRTIB/TSP | Jurisdiction under § 8477(e) is limited to participants/beneficiaries; without beneficiary status claim fails; no clear governing common-law elements supplied | Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to establish statutory beneficiary status |
| Whether equitable estoppel can prevent distribution to spouse | Firestone asserts estoppel based on representations/agency conduct (argued sparingly) | Defendants argue no basis to estop distribution absent valid designation; jurisdictional hook lacking | Court treats argument as conceded or inadequately supported; equitable estoppel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Kriebel v. Long, 994 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (construing TSP rules and emphasizing requirement that FRTIB actually receive a valid form)
- Hewitt v. Thrift Saving Plan, 664 F. Supp. 2d 529 (D.S.C. 2009) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff did not show timely submission of TSP-3; strict compliance approach)
- Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 30 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 1994) (discussing substantial-compliance doctrine in ERISA context; limited to ERISA where statute silent)
- Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2007) (permitting curing of procedural defect via affidavits under Rule 37 harmless-error analysis in discovery context)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment; genuine dispute requires sufficient admissible evidence)