Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fern C. Lee v. Rocky Mountain Ufcw Unions and Employers Trust Pension Plan
Citations: 13 F.3d 405; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37562; 1993 WL 482951Docket: 92-1308
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; November 22, 1993; Federal Appellate Court
Citation of unpublished opinions is generally disfavored but permissible if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and is attached to the citing document or provided to the court and parties if cited orally. In the case of Fern C. Lee v. Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions and Employers Trust Pension Plan, Lee appealed a district court's dismissal of her ERISA complaint, which was based on a denial of pension benefits from January 16, 1986. Lee filed her lawsuit over six years later, on June 19, 1992. The defendant moved to dismiss, asserting the claims were time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations, which the district court granted. On appeal, the court reviewed the dismissal under the de novo standard, noting that dismissal for failure to state a claim requires that no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief. Lee argued that the statute of limitations defense was not evident on the face of her complaint. The court clarified that an affirmative defense can be raised in a motion to dismiss if it is apparent from the complaint itself, and since Lee acknowledged the denial date, it was clear her claims were barred. Lee further argued that discovery might reveal a "continuing violation" or that the limitations period should be tolled due to Rocky Mountain's alleged inequitable conduct. However, the court maintained that if the complaint's dates supported dismissal based on the statute of limitations, it was Lee's responsibility to provide a factual basis for tolling the statute. The court concluded that Ms. Lee's allegations regarding securities fraud did not sufficiently invoke equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because her claims lacked specific factual support, in contrast to the plaintiff in Aldrich, who provided detailed allegations. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of Ms. Lee's complaint for failure to state a claim was upheld. Additionally, Rocky Mountain's request for sanctions against Ms. Lee was denied, as her arguments were not deemed frivolous. The judgment affirmed the dismissal while emphasizing that it lacks precedential value, except for certain legal doctrines. Ms. Lee's ERISA claims are governed by a six-year statute of limitations, which began when her application for benefits was denied on January 16, 1986, a point she contested based on the denial letter's mention of her reapplication rights; however, this argument was found inconsistent with established legal principles.