Untalasco v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
249 F. Supp. 3d 318
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Decedent (Noemi Untalasco), a Lockheed employee with a vested deferred pension, died Feb 22, 2010; she signed a benefit election form Jan 31, 2010.
- Lockheed denied payment because it contends it did not receive the signed election before the plan deadline; it sent a denial of appeal to Eduardo Untalasco on Jan 3, 2012.
- Eduardo Untalasco (pro se, acting for the family) filed an ERISA suit in this Court on March 7, 2016, well over three years after the Jan 3, 2012 denial.
- Lockheed moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the claim is time-barred by the District of Columbia’s three-year limitations period applied to ERISA benefit denials.
- Untalasco conceded the suit was untimely but asked the Court to excuse the delay based on his pro se status, asserted a six-year limitations period, and invoked laches; he offered no authority showing tolling or a longer limitations period.
- The Court granted Lockheed’s motion, holding the ERISA claim was time-barred and that no tolling or equitable excuse applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Untalasco's ERISA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations | Untalasco conceded untimeliness but argued the Court should nonetheless hear the case and suggested a six-year period applies | Lockheed: ERISA benefit-denial claims borrow D.C.’s three-year contract limitations; suit filed after that period is untimely | Court: Claim is time-barred under the three-year D.C. limitations period and dismissed |
| Whether the statute of limitations should be tolled because plaintiff is pro se | Untalasco argued his pro se status and unfamiliarity with ERISA justify leniency/tolling | Lockheed: Pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural deadlines | Court: Pro se status does not justify tolling; plaintiff had actual notice of the denial and right to sue |
| Whether equitable doctrines (laches) or a longer limitations period apply | Untalasco invoked a six-year limitations period and laches | Lockheed: No legal basis for six-year period; laches irrelevant because plaintiff seeks relief, not defendant | Court: No authority for six-year rule; laches inapplicable; strict statute applies |
| Whether any other grounds for tolling (fraudulent concealment, disability, defendant conduct) exist | Plaintiff alleged no specific concealment or disability facts | Lockheed: No facts supporting tolling doctrines | Court: No factual or legal basis to toll the D.C. statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (U.S. 2013) (ERISA §502 suits borrow applicable limitation period; plan’s limitations provisions can govern accrual/limitations issues)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Virtue v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Ret. & Family Prot. Plan, 997 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2013) (D.C. three-year limitations period applied to ERISA benefit-denial suits)
- Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 475 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2007) (ERISA accrual tied to clear repudiation rule for benefit denials)
- Carter v. WMATA, 764 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (statutes of limitation in D.C. are to be strictly applied)
- Daniels v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 A.3d 139 (D.C. 2014) (tolling for conduct that would lull plaintiff into inaction requires specific showing)
- McCracken v. Walls-Kaufman, 717 A.2d 346 (D.C. 1998) (tolling where plaintiff non compos mentis at accrual)