Roma Malkani v. Clark Consulting, Inc. , 441 F. App'x 164 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2008
ROMA P. MALKANI; INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CLARK CONSULTING, INCORPORATED; STRATFORD ADVISORY GROUP,
INCORPORATED; CLARK & WAMBERG, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’
PENSION PLAN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cv-02875-AW)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman H. Singer, SINGER & ASSOCIATES, PC, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Appellants. Sara Pikofsky, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.;
Christopher C. Posteraro, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kathryn L.
Einspanier, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Roma P. Malkani (“Malkani”) and Information
Systems and Networks Corporation (“ISN”) brought an action
against Clark Consulting, Inc., Stratford Advisory Group, Inc.,
and Clark & Wamberg, LLC (“Clark Group”), the administrators,
for an alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to ISN’s
Employees’ Pension Plan (“Plan”) under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Malkani and ISN brought
their claims under ERISA § 502(a). See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)
(2006).
The district court granted the Clark Group’s motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The court further found that Malkani lacked
standing to sue the Clark Group because she failed to show an
injury in fact, as required for standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560-61 (1992). The court found that ISN lacked jurisdiction to
sue under § 502(a)(2) of ERISA, as it was Plan sponsor — not a
fiduciary of the Plan. An employer, such as ISN, has standing
under § 502(a)(2) only if it is a fiduciary under ERISA and is
asserting a claim in its fiduciary capacity. Sonoco Prods.
Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366, 372 (4th Cir.
2003); see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2).
3
We review de novo a district court’s decision to
dismiss for lack of standing. Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419,
423 (4th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court has made it clear that
“standing is an essential and unchanging part of that case-or-
controversy requirement of Article III,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560,
one that “state[s] fundamental limits on federal judicial power
in our system of government.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
750 (1984).
We find no reversible error in the district court’s
opinion and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
See Malkani v. Clark Consulting, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D.
Md. 2010). Moreover, we note that this is Appellants’ fourth
appeal related to this dispute. Several of the issues raised in
this appeal appear to have previously been rejected by this
court in our two prior published opinions on the matter. See
Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2011) (regarding the
appeal of action brought by the Secretary of Labor); Chao v.
Malkani, 452 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2006) (same).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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