Krueger v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. - Blog

CASE 0:11-cv-02781-SRN-JSM Document 67 Filed 11/20/12 Page 42 of 44
there is no affirmative right for an employer to seek a refund for alleged overpayments
under ERISA, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that employers can have a
federal common law right of action for unjust enrichment to recover those
contributions.”); St. Paul Warehouse Emps. Welfare Fund v. SPS Cos., No. 07-235, 2008
WL 239521, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2008) (same); Am. Cleaners & Laundry Co. v.
Textile Processors Union Local 161, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1115–16 (E.D. Mo. 2007)
(same). Plaintiffs argue that, because courts have found that claims for federal common
law unjust enrichment are available when ERISA does not provide a remedy, that they
have properly stated an alternative claim that gives them a basis for relief.
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs are urging the Court to sanction a non-statutory
claim for federal common law unjust enrichment based on cases involving a specific
scenario—employers seeking to recover mistaken overpayments from plans. They argue
that Plaintiffs cannot rely on the reasoning in those cases, which allowed restitutionary
claims, because ERISA itself contains no rights for an employer to seek relief when it
mistakenly makes overpayments to a plan. Defendants further contend that ERISA
specifically provides the rights and remedies applicable to the conduct alleged by
Plaintiffs. ERISA § 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) specifically authorize remedies against persons
who cause plan losses or profits at a plan’s expense. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), (a)(3). The
remedies provided in § 205(a)(2) and (a)(3) are bounded: section 504(a)(2) requires a
breaching fiduciary, while § 502(a)(3) allows only “appropriate equitable relief.” See,
e.g., LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., 552 U.S. 248, 254 (2008) (§ 502(a)(2) is
limited to particular fiduciary breaches); Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 256
42