Reches v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
687 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Benjamin Reches sued Morgan Stanley claiming entitlement to pension and stock benefits under an ERISA-covered plan.
- Reches alleged periods of employee status and periods when he was classified as a leased employee or independent contractor (notably 1985–1990 and 1997–2001).
- Complaint was filed in 2016; defendant moved to dismiss as time-barred and on other grounds; district court dismissed portions of the complaint as untimely and denied limited discovery.
- District court sua sponte dismissed the pension claim (Count Two) as time-barred and dismissed stock claims (Count Four) as untimely; it considered the complaint’s allegations and plan documents in resolving the motion.
- Reches appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on the statute of limitations, declining to reach exhaustion, merits, settlement, or document-consideration issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA benefit claims are time-barred | Reches argued claims should not be time-barred and urged tolling theories | Morgan Stanley argued claims accrued earlier and are outside the six-year ERISA limitations period | Court held claims accrued when Reches knew he was classified as non-employee; claims filed in 2016 were untimely and dismissed |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Reches asserted (incoherently) equitable tolling should save claims | Morgan Stanley opposed tolling; argued no extraordinary circumstances | Court rejected tolling—no extraordinary circumstances justified tolling |
| Whether sua sponte statute-of-limitations dismissal was improper | Reches contended district court should not raise limitations sua sponte | Morgan Stanley relied on the complaint’s clear facts and prior briefing on timeliness | Court held sua sponte dismissal was permissible because the complaint’s papers plainly supported the limitations defense and a similar timeliness issue was fully briefed |
| Need to reach administrative exhaustion or merits | Reches sought resolution on whether he was eligible despite non-employee classification | Morgan Stanley argued statute-of-limitations resolution made those inquiries unnecessary | Court declined to reach exhaustion or merits because statute-of-limitations dismissal was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 363 Pension Plan, 201 F.3d 44 (2d Cir.) (accrual occurs when plaintiff learns of repudiation of benefit eligibility)
- Burke v. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP Long Term Disability Plan, 572 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (six-year limitations period applies to ERISA claims)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S.) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Walters v. Indus. & Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.3d 280 (2d Cir.) (sua sponte limitations dismissal permitted when facts supporting defense are in plaintiff’s papers)
- Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599 (2d Cir.) (discussion of sua sponte dismissal on limitations grounds)
- Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42 (2d Cir.) (ordinary rule that courts should not raise statute-of-limitations defense sua sponte)