Deloris Burroughs v. Broadspire

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16062 APRIL 15, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-02322-CV-AR-M
DELORIS BURROUGHS,
by and through her next friend
Richard Burroughs with Power of Attorney,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROADSPIRE,
f.k.a. Kemper Insurance Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
(April 15, 2009)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is not the first time we have considered an appeal of this case.
Appellant Deloris Burroughs (“Burroughs”), originally brought an action in 2001
against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and the BellSouth Long Term
Disability Plan for Salaried Employees (“LTD Plan”), challenging the denial of
benefits under such employee welfare benefit plan. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Burroughs and the defendants appealed. A panel of
this court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for entry of
judgment for the defendants. See Burroughs v. Bellsouth Telecommunications,
248 Fed. App. 64 (11th Cir. 2007), (“Burroughs I”).
Although challenging the same denial of benefits as in Burroughs I, and
alleging that the same errors occurred, Burroughs characterizes her claims in the
present case as breach of fiduciary duties. Broadspire moved to dismiss and the
district court granted the motion. Burroughs then perfected this appeal on the
basis of a dispositive issue of law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989).
“This procedure, operating on the assumption that the factual allegations in the
complaint are true, streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery
and fact finding.” Id. at 326–327. In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court
should disregard the legal conclusions drawn from the facts, as well as conclusory
2
allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact, to determine whether the
complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Aldana v. Del Monte
Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1246, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, we see no
reversible error. Burroughs’ claims in the instant case are virtually identical to her
criticisms of Broadspire in Burroughs I. Burroughs cannot state a claim for breach
of fiduciary duties where she was able to assert a claim for an appropriate remedy
for the denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). See Varity Corp. v. Howe,
516 U.S. 489 (1996). We have held multiple times, under these circumstances, a
breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot be asserted. See Ogden v. Blue Bell
Creameries, U.S.A., Inc., 348 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2003); Katz v. Comprehensive
Plan of Group Ins., 197 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 1999).
Alternatively, under both claim and issue preclusion, our earlier decision in
Burroughs I holding that Broadspire was neither arbitrary nor capricious precludes
Burroughs from continuing to assert claims against Broadspire based on the same
2004 benefit decision. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the
judgment of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
3