Muto v. CBS Corp.
668 F.3d 53
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Former Westinghouse employees in Pennsylvania alleged accrued benefits under ERISA were nonforfeitable after partial termination of the Westinghouse Plan; plan merged with CBS Plan in 2000 increasing funded status; plaintiffs sent 2003 letters regarding remedies; they filed suit in 2009 in SDNY seeking §1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3); district court applied New York borrowing statute to apply Pennsylvania four-year limit and dismissed as time-barred; court affirmed that Pennsylvania law governs timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY borrowing statute applies to ERISA §1132 claims | Muto/Beam argue NY borrowing statute should not erode ERISA uniformity | CBS argues borrowing statute correctly used to apply shorter PA period | Yes, NY borrowing statute applies |
| What limitations period governs ERISA §1132 claims here | PA four-year limit should not bar timely filed NY tenet rules | PA four-year contract-like limit applies via borrowing statute | PA four-year period applies; suit untimely |
| When and where the cause of action accrued for timeliness | Accrual tied to 2003 letters to NY Plan Administrator | Accrual based on plan terms and NY law place of injury | Accrual in Pennsylvania; four-year PA period runs by early 2008 |
| Impact of class action posture on timeliness | Putative class status should revive timely claims | Class status does not revive time-barred claims | Does not revive time-barred claims |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (borrowing principles for federal labor claims and timeliness)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) (absorption of state limitations within federal enactments)
- UAW v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696 (1966) (uniformity vs. forum-state borrowing considerations)
- Phelan v. Local 305 of United Ass'n of Journeymen, 973 F.2d 1050 (2d Cir. 1992) (special challenges in choosing limitations in labor area)
- Robertson v. Seidman & Seidman, 609 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1979) (courts refer to forum state's borrowing statute for timeliness)
- McDonald v. Piedmont Aviation Inc., 930 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1991) (application of NY borrowing statute in ERISA context)
- Arneil v. Ramsey, 550 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1977) (borrowing statute applied; later overruled on other grounds)
- Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461 (1947) (rejection of sterilizing interpretation of borrowing rules)
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975) (rejection of piecemeal application of statutes of limitations)
- Champion International Corp. v. United Paperworkers International Union, 779 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1985) (borrowing statute not mandatory if defeats federal policy (labor))