Moses v. Revlon Inc.
691 F. App'x 16
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Julienne Moses, pro se, sued under ERISA §502(a)(1)(B) seeking increased spousal pension benefits allegedly due based on her deceased husband’s election of a retirement pension that would have started when he turned 65.
- Husband died in 1989 while receiving disability pension benefits; Moses received survivor disability payments thereafter but expected higher retirement-based payments beginning in 2004 (when husband would have been 65).
- Moses alleged she did not receive the increased payments and filed suit in 2015; she also alleged she only rediscovered plan documents in 2013.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper parties were named and the claim was time-barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contracts (N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213).
- The district court dismissed most defendants as improper and held Moses’s claim accrued in 2004 (when she reasonably should have known of the miscalculation), barring the 2015 suit; Moses appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, denying Moses’s request to add new documents on appeal and concluding the complaint on its face established accrual in 2004, making the 2015 suit untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants other than Revlon were proper parties | Moses named multiple defendants; implied they are responsible | Defendants other than Revlon were improperly named | District court correctly dismissed non-Revlon defendants |
| Whether Moses’s ERISA claim is time-barred | Claim accrued later (2013–2014) after rediscovery/after Aurora letter; confusion over plan terms | Claim accrued in 2004 when increased benefit should have begun; six-year NY statute applies | Claim accrued in 2004; complaint shows suit filed after limitations period; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether appellate court should consider new documents in Moses’s reply brief | Moses asked court to accept new documents as extraordinary circumstances | Defendants opposed; appellate review limited to trial record absent extraordinary circumstances | Motion denied; no extraordinary circumstances to consider new documents |
| Standard of review for dismissal/statute of limitations | N/A (procedural) | N/A | De novo review applied to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and statute of limitations application |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975) (appellate courts ordinarily will not consider evidence outside the trial record absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals; construe complaint liberally)
- Gerena v. Korb, 617 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2010) (statute of limitations application reviewed de novo)
- Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 (2d Cir. 2014) (statute-of-limitations defense may be decided on Rule 12(b)(6) when it appears on face of complaint)
- Burke v. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP Long Term Disability Plan, 572 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (ERISA §502(a)(1)(B) claims borrow the most analogous state statute of limitations)
- Novella v. Westchester Cty., 661 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2011) (limitations period begins when pensioner has enough information to know or reasonably should know of a miscalculation)