Terrance Rolland v. Textron, Inc. , 300 F. App'x 635 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-12132 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 12, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00023-CV-LGW-1
TERRANCE ROLLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXTRON, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 12, 2008)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Rolland appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Textron,
Inc. after a bench trial on Rolland’s claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq. (ERISA). Specifically Rolland
asserts the district court erred in (1) denying a jury trial to him, and (2) finding
Textron was not acting in a fiduciary capacity. He further asserts that if the
district court was correct in determining that Textron was not acting in a fiduciary
capacity, it erred in then not reinstating Rolland’s state law claim.
Rolland’s claim the district court erred in denying him a jury trial is
meritless. It is well-settled that plaintiffs bringing ERISA claims are not entitled
to jury trials under ERISA because such claims are equitable in nature. See
Broaddus v. Fla. Power Corp., 145 F.3d 1283, 1287 n.** (11th Cir. 1998); Hunt v.
Hawthorne Assoc., Inc., 119 F.3d 888, 907 (11th Cir. 1997); Stewart v. KHD
Deutz of Am. Corp., 75 F.3d 1522, 1527 (11th Cir. 1996). Thus, this claim is
foreclosed by our prior precedent.
Rolland next asserts the district court erred in finding Textron was not
acting in a fiduciary capacity. We disagree and affirm the district court’ denial of
Rolland’s ERISA claim for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned
order of March 31, 2008.
2
Lastly, the district court did not err in failing to reinstate Rolland’s state law
fraud claim when it rejected Rolland’s ERISA claim. Rolland’s claim was
properly an ERISA claim. 29 U.S.C. § 1144 provides that ERISA supersedes any
and all state laws as they may relate to any employee benefit plan. “[W]here state
law claims of fraud and misrepresentation are based upon the failure of a covered
plan to pay benefits, the state law claims have a nexus with the ERISA plan and its
benefits system.” Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Century Med. Health Plan, Inc.,
57 F.3d 1040, 1042 (11th Cir.1995). The district court did not err in finding the
state law fraud claim was preempted by ERISA, and there was no entitlement for
the fraud claim to be reinstated because the ERISA claim was unsuccessful. See
Lee v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 894 F.2d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 1990) (“We
do not decide whether ERISA would provide relief on the facts of this case. Any
remedy that does exist, however, must come from within that exclusively federal
scheme of pension regulation.”).
AFFIRMED.
3