WHELEHAN v. BANK OF AMERICA BENEFIT APPEALS COMMITTEE (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen Whelehan appeals the district court's August 15, 2018 judgment dismissing her complaint, which alleges that defendants-appellees Bank of America Benefit Appeals Committee, Bank of America, and Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Companies -- Fleet -- Traditional Benefit (the “Plan”) (collectively, “BoA”) improperly denied her retirement benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). By decision and order entered August 14, 2018, the district court granted BoA's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Testa v. Becker, 910 F.3d 677, 682 (2d Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.

I. Procedural History

Whelehan's attempts to receive benefits under the Plan have been ongoing for approximately eight years. In 2011, Whelehan first inquired about benefits purportedly owed to her under the Plan by virtue of her employment with Security Trust Co. of Rochester, a predecessor of Bank of America. BoA responded that it had no record of her participation in the Plan but that she could fill out an enclosed “Prior Employment Questionnaire” and return it with documentation of her benefit. Whelehen submitted the questionnaire with certain documents. On September 1, 2011, BoA replied that it had “no record of a vested pension benefit” and, accordingly, that “there [was] no deferred vested pension benefit payable to you from the Plan.” App'x at 38.

On October 27, Whelehan responded by seeking review of the denial with additional documents in support of her claim. On November 17, BoA replied that it was treating Whelehan's letter as a formal claim for benefits under the Plan's claims procedure and disclosed the claims process. See Whelehan v. Bank of Am. Pension Plan for Legacy Cos.--Fleet--Traditional Benefit (“Whelehan I”), 5 F.Supp.3d 410, 415 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). On February 7, 2012, BoA confirmed to Whelehan that it was denying her claim because she failed to show a vested benefit in the Plan. Id. The letter noted that Whelehan had 60 days to appeal the decision and to submit new evidence and warned her that the Benefit Appeals Committee's review “shall be final and binding” and that “[f]ailure to raise issues or present evidence on review may preclude those issues or evidence from being presented in any subsequent proceeding or judicial review of the claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Whelehan appealed the denial to the Benefit Appeals Committee, submitting two new documents. Id. BoA denied the final appeal and informed Whelehan that she could seek review in federal court. Id. at 416.

Whelehan thereafter brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York challenging BoA's determination as arbitrary and capricious. On March 17, 2014, after the close of discovery, the district court (Telesca, J.) upheld the Plan's determination and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Id. at 424-25. Whelehan moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied the motion with prejudice. Whelehan v. Bank of Am. Pension Plan for Legacy Cos.--Fleet--Traditional Benefit, No. 12-cv-6279, 2014 WL 4285028 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2014). On October 30, 2015, this Court affirmed the district court's ruling. Whelehan v. Bank of Am. Pension Plan for Legacy Cos.--Fleet--Traditional Benefit, 621 F. App'x 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2463, 195 L.Ed.2d 801 (2016).

On December 21, 2016, approximately six months after her petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, Whelehan submitted a new claim to benefits in the Plan supported by new documentation. Whelehan received no response to this 2016 request. On August 18, 2017, Whelehan commenced the present suit, alleging wrongful denial of benefits, failure to follow claims procedures, failure to produce documents, and breach of fiduciary duty.

II. Discussion

This Court is “free to affirm an appealed decision on any ground which finds support in the record, regardless of the ground upon which the trial court relied.” Leecan v. Lopes, 893 F.2d 1434, 1439 (2d Cir. 1990); see, e.g., Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472, 476 (2d Cir. 1995). As Whelehan acknowledges, her claim in Whelehan I was brought as an appeal of a denial of benefits and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. To the extent Whelehan seeks to relitigate her claim for benefits, she is barred from doing so by res judicata. See TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 499 (2d Cir. 2014). Under the doctrine of res judicata, or “claim preclusion,” a final judgment on the merits of a claim precludes the parties relitigating that claim. See id.; EDP Med. Comput. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir. 2007). Upon such a final judgment, res judicata bars further litigation of that claim, not only with respect to every matter that was offered and received but also with respect to any other matter that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to offer for that purpose. See Manhattan Eye Ear & Throat Hosp. v. NLRB, 942 F.2d 151, 155-56 (2d Cir. 1991). These principles are applicable to claims under ERISA. See Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986).

All of Whelehan's claims as to BoA's 2017 failures to respond or provide documents, and its alleged failure to administer the Plan solely in the interest of participants, are relevant only if Whelehan was a Plan participant during the period for which she seeks (and previously sought) benefits. These claims in the present litigation were properly dismissed because Whelehan had already litigated her claim to the same pension benefits and had failed to establish that, at the time relevant to her claim to benefits, she was a Plan participant. See Whelehan, 621 F. App'x at 73 n.4. Accordingly, Whelehan's complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, and the district court properly granted BoA's motion to dismiss.

* * *

We have considered all of Whelehan's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.