Yamauchi v. Cotterman
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37089
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Yamauchi sues Cotterman, Citigroup, and Bank of America (BANA) over alleged ERISA plan asset transfers from Echelon in 1998.
- Cotterman, as Plan trustee, allegedly terminated the Plan and did not assign the Plan’s mortgage participation interests to Yamauchi.
- Partial Purchase Agreement with Fleet Finance assigned 10 notes to Fleet; Fleet serviced loans; 16% interest was allegedly transferred to the Plan in 1998.
- Yamauchi alleges misrepresentations and breaches by the Banks as loan servicers or successors, tied to Plan assets.
- The Court previously dismissed earlier complaints as time-barred and granted leave to amend; now dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
- ERISA preemption, statute of limitations, and pleading adequacy are central to the Court’s ruling against all Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERISA preemption of claims against Cotterman | Plaintiff asserts state-law claims survive alongside ERISA claims. | ERISA preempts state-law claims when plan existence is critical to liability. | ERISA preempts Cotterman claims. |
| Timeliness of ERISA fiduciary-duty claim against Cotterman | Discovery/continuing-concealment theories toll limitations. | No timely last action within six years; no adequate concealment pleaded. | ERISA claims barred by statute of limitations. |
| Preemption of Bank Defendants’ common law claims by ERISA | Banks’ duties arise from Plan administration and servicing of loans. | ERISA savings clause allows non-ERISA duties (banking/legal) to proceed. | Common law claims against Banks not preempted; but time-barred. |
| Timeliness of common law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud) | Discovery/continuous accrual theories toll limitations for Banks. | No timely accrual within limitations; early 1998 last actions; no ongoing duty within period. | All common law claims time-barred, even under continuous accrual. |
| Declaratory judgment claim timeliness | Declaratory relief sought to resolve Plan-asset disputes. | Declaratory actions governed by applicable limitations periods for the underlying claims. | Declaratory judgment claim time-barred. |
| Leave to amend | Amendment could cure pleading defects and timeliness. | Amendment would be futile; deficiencies remain. | Court denies leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility requires factual allegations)
- Davila v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court 2004) (ERISA preemption and exclusive enforcement)
- Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp., 64 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1995) (fraudulent concealment requires active concealment to toll)
- Laskin v. Siegel, 728 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013) (plan termination and lack of notice supports time-barred claim)
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (continuing wrong and accrual under California law)
- Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court 1987) (ERISA preemption standard for relating to plans)
- New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (Supreme Court 1995) (uniform regulation of employee benefits)