Lebahn v. Owens
813 F.3d 1300
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Trent Lebahn, a former sales manager, alleges consultant Eloise Owens negligently miscalculated his early-retirement monthly benefit, inducing him to retire and causing economic loss when the Plan later asserted overpayments.
- Owens moved to dismiss, arguing the negligent-misrepresentation claim was preempted by ERISA because it "related to" the Plan; the district court granted the motion and entered judgment on June 13, 2014.
- Lebahn filed a Motion for Reconsideration labeled as Rule 59(e) on July 14, 2014, arguing for the first time that Owens was not a Plan fiduciary and thus ERISA preemption did not apply; the district court treated the filing as an untimely Rule 59 motion and as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief on October 10, 2014.
- Lebahn appealed; the Tenth Circuit held Lebahn’s appeal was timely only as to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal because no timely appeal was taken from the June 13 judgment.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief, concluding Lebahn failed to show exceptional circumstances and that his fiduciary-status argument could and should have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / timeliness of appeal | Lebahn argued his July 14 motion was within time to appeal and preserved review of the underlying judgment | Owens argued the motion was untimely and did not toll the appeal period for the June 13 judgment | Court: Lebahn’s motion was filed after the 28-day Rule 59 window; appeal is timely only as to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, so the court lacks jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal. |
| Proper standard of review for Rule 60(b) motion asserting legal mistake | Lebahn urged the court could review the district court’s legal ruling de novo under Van Skiver because the motion was within the appeal period | Owens argued Van Skiver does not permit appellate review of an underlying judgment when no timely appeal was taken from that judgment | Court: Van Skiver does not authorize reversal of the underlying judgment here; review is limited to abuse-of-discretion review of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. |
| Whether district court effectively found Owens was a fiduciary (and erred) | Lebahn contended the district court implicitly treated Owens as a fiduciary and that was legal error fatal to dismissal | Owens and district court treated fiduciary status as an unraised, novel issue and focused on preemption based on asserted relation to the Plan | Court: No clear district-court finding that Owens was a fiduciary; Lebahn failed to show the district court made the substantive legal determination he now challenges. |
| Appropriateness of Rule 60(b) relief for fiduciary-status argument | Lebahn argued fiduciary-status issue could not have been raised earlier because the district court allegedly first treated Owens as a fiduciary in its ruling | Owens argued Lebahn could and should have raised fiduciary-status arguments in opposing the motion to dismiss; Rule 60(b) is improper for belated new arguments | Court: Lebahn could have raised the fiduciary argument earlier; Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timeliness of appeals and jurisdictional deadlines)
- Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991) (limits on Rule 60(b)(1) mistake-of-law relief and scope of appellate review)
- Airparts Co. v. Custom Benefit Servs. of Austin, 28 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 1994) (third-party suits and ERISA preemption analysis)
- ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 214 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2000) (standard for reversing denial of Rule 60(b) relief)