The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 19, 1979 Robert McGinnis ("McGinnis") filed this
action against defendants William D. Joyce, John D. Kelahan,
Frank Wsol, Robert J. Baker, John J. Barranco and Michael P.
Murphy. Defendants are trustees of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund (the "Pension Fund") and
Health and Welfare Fund (the "Welfare Fund") (collectively the
"Funds"), of which McGinnis is a beneficiary. In McGinnis'
Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") he charges defendants with a
continuing and wilful refusal to grant McGinnis access to
plan-year reports of the Funds, to which he is entitled under
Sections 104(b)(2) and 104(b)(4) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
On December 4, 1980 McGinnis moved to amend the Complaint to
include allegations that (1) defendants have unlawfully refused
to provide McGinnis with a list of all employers contributing to
the Pension Fund and (2) defendant Wsol and other employees of
Local 710 have threatened McGinnis with violence if he continues
his opposition activities (including pursuing this action) or
ever comes to the union hall where the Funds' offices are
located. Defendants oppose the proposed amendment, maintaining
that its allegations are non-actionable under ERISA. For the
reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, McGinnis'
motion to amend the Complaint is granted in part and denied in
McGinnis' Request for a List of Contributing Employers
Defendants raise a single argument in opposition to that
proposed amendment*fn1: Under the relevant labor regulation (CFR §
2520.102-3(b)(3)) trustees may elect alternatively to provide
beneficiaries upon request either with a complete list of
employer contributors or with information only as to specifically
identified employers. In short, defendants contend that because
they had the right to amend the Plans as they did, McGinnis has
no basis for seeking relief.
That argument plainly misses the mark. Under ERISA § 502 a
beneficiary may bring a civil action "to enforce his rights under
the terms of the plan." McGinnis alleges that at the time he made
his request, his rights under the terms of the Pension Plan
included access to the requested information.*fn2 That being true,
the trustees were certainly not free to amend the Plan
retroactively to deny him that right. Defendants' contentions are
thus insufficient to justify denial (in effect a dismissal) of
McGinnis' first proposed amendment.
Interference with McGinnis' Exercise of Rights
McGinnis' second offered amendment is a new Count IV alleging
(1) On February 3, 1980 Wsol and other employees of
Local 710 under his direction threatened McGinnis
with violence if he continued his "opposition
activities," including the continued prosecution of
this action to enforce his ERISA rights.
(2) In that respect, the same persons threatened to
beat McGinnis severely if he ever came to the union
hall, where the Funds' offices are located.
McGinnis seeks injunctive and monetary relief under ERISA § 510:
It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge,
fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate
against a participant or beneficiary for exercising
any right to which he is entitled under the
provisions of an employee benefit plan, [or] this
subchapter . . . or for the purpose of interfering
with the attainment of any right to which such
participant may become entitled under the plan, [or]
this subchapter. . . . The provisions of [ERISA §
502] shall be applicable in the enforcement of this
Defendants argue that McGinnis' charges track ERISA § 511, a
criminal statute that does not imply ...