 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fillmore v. Brush Wellman6/30/2004
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Richard Fillmore, Terry Jacobs, Steven Musser, Ralph Whitaker, and Richard Knauss, Sr. appeal the decision of the Ottawa Court of Common Pleas to dismiss their complaint. Because we conclude that appellants' complaint is preempted by federal law, we affirm.
. Appellants were employed by appellee. They, among others, sued appellee as a result of contracting Chronic Beryllium Disease ("CBD") from exposure to beryllium and beryllium-containing materials at appellee's facilities. In June 1998, appellee entered into a series of settlement agreements with these litigants which were contingent upon all parties signing releases in the different lawsuits. Appellants received various cash payments from their settlement agreements. The settlement agreements also modified appellee's Chronic Beryllium Disease Policy, effective April 1, 1993, and restated May 1, 1997 (the "CBD policy") in certain respects. The CBD policy would remain in place for appellants, even if it were amended or terminated with respect to other Brush employees. In addition, the CBD policy's buy-out option would be extended from five years to ten years from the date of their releases.
. Appellants remained employed with appellee until January 2002 when they were forced by appellee to exercise the one-year buy-out option before the ten years had run. On August 27, 2003, appellants filed a complaint with the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages. Appellee removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because appellants' state law claims were preempted by the Employee
. Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), Section 1001 et seq., Title 29 U.S.Code. The federal court, sua sponte, remanded the action to the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellee renewed its motion to dismiss and alternatively filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court, determining that appellants' claims were preempted by ERISA, granted appellee's motion to dismiss. Appellants raise the following assignment of error on appeal:
. "The court below erroneously decided that plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety was preempted by federal law as relating to an ERISA plan and thus wrongfully dismissed plaintiffs' complaint."
. Initially we note that appellee filed an alternative motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The trial court granted appellee's motion pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Our review, therefore, is limited to whether the trial court properly dismissed appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim.
. The standard of review on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is de novo. Hunt v. Marksman Prod., Division of S/R Industries, Inc. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 760, 762. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548. Dismissal is appropriate if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the nonmoving party, it appears beyond doubt that the nonmoving party can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested relief. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, syllabus.
. The court will look only to the complaint or, in a proper case, the copy of a written instrument upon which a claim is predicated to determine whether the allegations are legally sufficient to state a claim. Slife v. Kundtz Properties
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|