Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wegmann v. Gupta

March 10, 2008

JOEY WEGMANN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VEENA K. GUPTA, M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), to which plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 22). Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 2) pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a three-Count complaint in this Court seeking to recover damages under various provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against his former employer, Care First Medical Center, Inc. (Care First) and against Veena K. Gupta, M.D. in her capacity as administrator of Care First's employee profit-sharing plan (Plan). Dr. Gupta owns Care First.

Care First began the Plan in January of 2002. Wegmann contends that, although Dr. Gupta funded the Plan at five percent (5%) of his gross income 2002 and at an additional twelve percent (12%) in 2003, his Plan was not funded in 2004 and 2005.

In March of 2005, plaintiff notified Dr. Gupta that he would be ending his employment with Care First. Dr. Gupta asserts that, some time thereafter, plaintiff received a distribution (neither party has yet specified an amount) from the Plan. At some point between March and November of 2005, Care First decided to terminate the Plan.

In January of 2006, plaintiff retained counsel and between April 3, 2006, and September 14, 2006, plaintiff's counsel sent five requests to Dr. Gupta for information and an accounting of benefits with respect to his fund in the Plan. Dr. Gupta refused to provide plaintiff the documents he sought unless he was willing to pay $800 for the copies. Plaintiff subsequently filed this complaint (Doc. 2) against Care First and Dr. Gupta in her capacity as administrator of the Plan.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must take all well pleaded factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the petitioner. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45--46 (1957); Hernandez v. City of Goshen, Ind., 324 F.3d 535, 537 (7th Cir. 2003). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007).

A. Count I

Count I alleges that Dr. Gupta violated both 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) and § 1025(a) when she refused to provide plaintiff with "a copy of the employee pension benefit plan, and all amendments thereto, as well as an accounting of his vested and unvested benefits thereunder." For that alleged violation, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to provide him with the requested information under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). Plaintiff also alleges that § 1132(c)(1) entitles him to statutory damages of $100 dollars per day that he has not received the information, beginning thirty-one (31) days after he made his initial request for the Plan documents, as well as costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing the action.

Defendants first argue that the Court should dismiss Count I of plaintiff's complaint because § 1024(b) does not require defendants to respond to requests for information regarding accrued benefits. While defendants correctly assert that § 1024(b) does not apply, defendants overlook that § 1025(a) governs such requests. Balzanto v. Nicholas Cuda, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 721, *9-10 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ("[T]hese particular requests constitute requests for a statement of his accrued benefits and thus fall under section 10[2]5(a) and not section 10[2]4(b)(4)."); Lumenite Control Tech., Inc. v. Jarvis, 252 F. Supp.2d 700, 710 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Because Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleges that Dr. Gupta violated § 10[2]5(a), Count I survives defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants have not argued why this Court should dismiss plaintiffs' request for statutory damages under § 1132(c)(1). Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss Count I is DENIED.*fn1

B. Count II

Count II alleges that Dr. Gupta violated 29 U.S.C. § 1082 and § 1145 by failing to fund plaintiff's plan account. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages equal to the amount of the allegedly delinquent contributions, plus interest, pursuant to § ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.