Few v. Laborers District Council Pension & Disability Trust Fund No. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
EDWARD FEW, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-cv- 1669 (APM)
)
LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION )
& DISABILITY TRUST FUND NO. 2 )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro Se Plaintiff Edward Few’s Complaint, filed against Defendant Laborers District
Council Pension & Disability Trust Fund No. 2, tersely makes the following allegation:
“Not being paid the right amount of money for my time that I worked. I work[ed] 15 yrs. They
are only paying me for one year worth of work. For my pension, I did not quit. I got hurt on the
job also.” Compl., ECF No. 1-2. Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the pension benefit plan and, (2) to the
extent Plaintiff asserts state law claims, they are preempted. See Def.’s Stmt. of P&A in Support
of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7-1 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.], at 3–8. Although the court
notified Plaintiff of the motion’s filing, see Order, ECF No. 9, Plaintiff did not file a response.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s silence, the court evaluates Defendant’s motion on its merits.
See Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of the D.C., 819 F.3d 476, 481–82 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
The court construes Plaintiff’s claim as one for unpaid pension benefits arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). That claim, however, must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies. “It is well established that, barring exceptional
circumstances, plaintiffs seeking a determination pursuant to ERISA of rights under their pension
plans ‘must . . . exhaust available administrative remedies under their ERISA-governed plans
before they may bring suit in federal court.’” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
40 F.3d 426, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Springer v. Wal–Mart Assocs. Group Health Plan, 908
F.2d 897, 899 (11th Cir.1990)). Here, Defendant has come forward with evidence that the Fund
tendered a check to Plaintiff in January 2005 in the amount of $2,208 for benefits payments
retroactive to June 1, 2001. See Def.’s Mot., Decl. of Renee Parenti, ECF No. 7-2, ¶ 5; Def.’s
Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 7-2 at 112–13. Plaintiff did not, however, dispute the amount of that benefit
payment per the procedures set forth in the Pension Fund Plan document. Decl. of Renee Parenti,
ECF No. 7-2, ¶¶ 6–9. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim under ERISA must be dismissed for failure
to exhaust.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is granted.
A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: September 3, 2019 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge
2