Carpenter v. Carroll, Pinto, Inc. ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1800
NATALIE G. CARPENTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARROLL, PINTO, INCORPORATED; CARROLL, PINTO,
INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES PENSION TRUST; CARROLL,
PINTO, INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES PROFIT SHARING
PLAN; GEORGE CARROLL, M.D.; CARLOS PINTO,
M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-04-758-2)
Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: March 7, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard K. Bennett, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert W. McFarland, Amy Morrissey Turk,
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, William H. Baxter, II,
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Carlos
Pinto, M.D.; John Y. Pearson, Jr., John S. Wilson, Michael C.
Laurence, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees
Carroll, Pinto, Inc., Carroll, Pinto, Inc. Employees Pension Trust,
Carroll, Pinto, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing Plan; William R.
Savage, III, GLASSCOCK, GARDY & SAVAGE, Suffolk, Virginia, for
Appellee George Carroll, M.D.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Natalie G. Carpenter appeals from the
district court order granting summary judgement to Defendants-
Appellees, Carrol, Pinto, Inc., et al., in her action under ERISA
to collect benefits due and for breach of fiduciary duty.
Carpenter was married to Dr. Carlos Pinto in 1956. In 1977,
they divorced and, as part of the property settlement, Dr. Pinto
exercised an “irrevocable designation,” making Carpenter the
primary beneficiary in $100,000 from various ERISA qualified plans
in which Dr. Pinto participated through his employer, Carroll,
Pinto, Inc. In 2004, Carpenter brought suit against defendants,
claiming, among other things, benefits due under the ERISA plans
related to the irrevocable designation.
Defendants moved to dismiss the case on summary judgment. The
district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that
Carpenter did not have standing to bring the suit because she was
not a fiduciary, beneficiary, or participant in any of the plans.
29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)-(3). Specifically, the district court
noted that Carpenter was clearly not a participant in or fiduciary
of the plans. In addition, the district court held that, according
to the relevant plan documents, a “beneficiary” is a person to whom
a share of a deceased participant’s interest in the plan is
payable. Dr. Pinto was the only plan participant through whom
Carpenter could claim beneficiary status. Because he was not
3
deceased, the district court concluded that Carpenter could not
have standing as a beneficiary and, therefore, that Carpenter did
not have standing to bring the suit under ERISA.
We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the district
court’s opinion and the parties’ briefs, and have found no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4