706 F. App'x 868
7th Cir.2017Background
- Roberto Trujillo was the ABA's personnel employee and served as Plan Administrator for the ABA pension plan governed by ERISA.
- The plan's administration committee removed Trujillo as Plan Administrator; shortly thereafter the ABA fired him.
- Trujillo alleged his removal and firing were retaliatory after he warned of plan mismanagement and sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) seeking reinstatement and back pay (equitable relief).
- The district court dismissed the ERISA claim with prejudice, reasoning § 1132(a)(3) permits only current fiduciaries to sue and Trujillo sought relief for himself, not the plan.
- The district court then declined supplemental jurisdiction over Trujillo’s state-law tort claim against Krsul and dismissed it without prejudice, but overlooked Trujillo’s invocation of diversity jurisdiction.
- On appeal the court affirmed dismissal of the ERISA claim, reversed the dismissal of the state-law claim, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a former fiduciary may sue under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) for retaliatory removal | Trujillo: § 1132(a)(3) should allow a former fiduciary to obtain equitable relief for retaliatory removal | Defendants: § 1132(a)(3) authorizes only current fiduciaries to sue | Court: Plaintiff cannot proceed under § 1132(a)(3) because he sued for his own benefit and was not suing in a fiduciary capacity |
| Whether Trujillo could sue on behalf of plan participants pro se | Trujillo asserted ERISA violations harming the plan and characterized his suit as fiduciary-initiated | Defendants noted he proceeded pro se and sought personal relief | Court: A pro se litigant cannot represent plan participants; to sue in fiduciary capacity he needed counsel |
| Whether the district court could decline jurisdiction over the state-law tort claim when diversity was alleged | Trujillo: District court erred by refusing jurisdiction and overlooked his diversity allegation | Krsul: Diversity lacking because ABA (an Illinois citizen) was a defendant, destroying complete diversity | Court: Because the district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the ABA, ABA’s citizenship could be ignored for diversity purposes; diversity between Trujillo and Krsul existed, so the state-law claim must be remanded |
| Whether judge/clerk membership in ABA required recusal | Trujillo: Suggested potential conflict from judge/clerks' ABA membership | Defendants: No recusal required | Court: Membership in a defendant bar association does not require recusal; argument meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbin v. Blankenburg, 39 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.) (holds § 1132(a) allows only current fiduciaries to sue)
- Chemung Canal Trust Co. v. Sovran Bank/Maryland, 939 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.) (same rule limiting suits to current fiduciaries)
- Blackmar v. Lichtenstein, 603 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir.) (same rule limiting suits to current fiduciaries)
- Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505 (7th Cir.) (equitable relief under ERISA must be pursued in interest of plan, not personal benefit)
- Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366 (4th Cir.) (fiduciary suits must serve plan interest)
- Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.) (pro se litigant cannot represent plan or bring ERISA claims that primarily benefit the plan)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (U.S.) (diversity evaluated at filing and across the entire case)
- Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Ill., Inc., 551 F.3d 587 (7th Cir.) (a federal question basis over a nondiverse party permits ignoring that party’s citizenship for diversity over remaining defendants)