Verizon Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan for New England Associates v. Rogers et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
__________________________________________
)
VERIZON SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT 	)
DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN FOR NEW 	)
ENGLAND ASSOC., 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:21-CV-00110-MSM-PAS
)
JACQUELINE ROGERS, and AFFILIATED )
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. SANDS, 	)
Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,)
)
v. 	)
)
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 	)
And EQUIAN, LLC., 	)
Third-Party Defendants. 	)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
Jacqueline 	Rogers 	(“Rogers”) 	was 	an 	employee 	of 	Verizon, 	Inc., 	and 	a
participant in her employer’s disability benefits plan (“Plan”)1, when, in late October
2016, her vehicle was struck from behind and she was too injured to work. Pursuant
to the Plan, Rogers went out on disability leave and was paid disability benefits of
$44,962.50; her medical costs were also covered by the Plan. 	After her collection of
benefits, and without filing a lawsuit, Rogers settled with the insurer of the car that
1 	The Plan is titled the Verizon Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan for
New England Associates and is the plaintiff here.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
had hit her vehicle for a lump sum of $100,000. She was represented by the Affiliated
Law Offices of Richard M. Sands (“Sands” or “firm”). The $100,000 was disbursed, as
is customary, to Rogers’ attorney, the Sands firm. 	The ultimate disposition of that
$100,000 is relevant to the outcome in this case, as discussed below.
Verizon,2 filing this lawsuit approximately 18 months after Rogers settled her
accident case, lays claim to $44,962.50 of that settlement, seeking reimbursement of
the disability benefits it paid. 	Sands vehemently disputes Verizon’s entitlement to
any part of the settlement. 	Rogers is apparently playing no part in these post-
settlement activities; the plaintiff, while naming her as a defendant in Count I, has
not served her, and she has therefore not been active in this case.
Verizon’s cause of action arises under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employment
Retirement Securities Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B)(ii), which provides
that a fiduciary may seek equitable relief to enforce the terms of a Plan. 	Verizon
maintains that the Plan, in its subrogation clause, required Rogers to reimburse it
for the benefits it paid her, and that the obligation created an equitable lien on the
proceeds of the settlement. 	It argues that this action against Sands, to whom the
settlement proceeds were given, is an equitable one to enforce the reimbursement
2 There is more than one corporate player in this case whose name includes “Verizon.”
There is Verizon, Inc. which, according to the Complaint, employed Rogers. (ECF No.
1 ¶ 5.) 	There is Verizon Communications, which in the plaintiff’s memorandum in
support of summary judgment is also identified as Rogers’ employer. (ECF No. 32 at
1.). 	Verizon Communications also sponsors the disability Plan. 	(ECF No. 32 at 5.)
There 	is, 	finally, 	the 	Verizon 	Employee 	Benefit 	Committee 	(“VEBC”) 	whose
chairperson is the Plan’s designated Administrator.
	Id. 	Unless the distinction is
important, they are referred to collectively as “Verizon.”
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
requirement of the Plan, and thus falls within §1132(a)(3)(B)(ii). 	Sands disagrees
that Verizon has an
equitable, rather than a
legal, action3 and this issue is central to
their dispute.
Sands has counterclaimed against the Plan for a violation of 29 U.S.C.
§1024(b)(4), a provision of ERISA that requires the administrator of a Plan to furnish
certain documents to any participant or beneficiary. 	(ECF No. 7.) 	Verizon contests
that claim because, it maintains, Sands is neither a beneficiary of nor a participant
in the Plan and therefore lacks standing, that the documents he accuses the Plan of
withholding are not documents required to be furnished, and that Sands’ request for
documents was not made to the Plan administrator.
Sands 	then 	filed 	a 	third-party 	Complaint 	against 	both 	Verizon
Communications and Equian. 	That Complaint repeats the allegation of a violation
of § 1024(b)(4) against Equian (Count 3). 	In addition, Count 1 accuses Verizon
Communications and Count 2 accuses Equian of violating 29 U.S.C. § 1029(c).4
Finally, 	Counts 	4 	and 	5 	allege 	that 	Verizon 	Communications 	and 	Equian,
respectively, intentionally and tortiously interfered with Sands’ contract to zealously
3 The Court knows of no other claims brought against Sands or Rogers by Verizon.
There are no supplemental state claims by Verizon in this case, although Sands has
raised a state claim of tortious interference with contract in his third-party suit
against Verizon Communications and Equian, LLD (“Equian”). Equian, which enters
in Act II of this drama, was retained by Verizon to pursue its subrogation rights under
the Plan.
4 29 U.S.C. 1029(c) is directed at the Secretary of Labor and governs the content and
format of the material, such as the Summary Plan Description and Annual Report,
that § 1024 mandates must be supplied to beneficiaries and participants.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
represent Rogers “in her pursuit for damages arising out of the injuries she sustained
in the motor vehicle accident.” All the claims in the third-party Complaint are based
on the Plan’s allegedly unlawful failure to turn over to Sands specific records related
to Rogers’ employment that he had requested in connection with his representation
of her in the car accident case.
I. 	SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Summary judgment’s role in civil
litigation is “to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether
there is a genuine need for trial.”
Garside v. Osco Drug Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir.
1990) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) Advisory Committee Notes). Summary judgment
can be granted only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. “A dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such
that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A
fact is material if it carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under
the applicable law.”
Santiago–Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46,
52 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting
Sanchez v. Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996)).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the
record evidence “in the light most favorable to, and drawing all reasonable inferences
in favor of, the nonmoving party.”
Feliciano de la Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort &
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing
Mulero–Rodriguez v. Ponte,
Inc., 98 F.3d 670, 672 (1st Cir. 1996)). 	“[W]hen the facts support plausible but
conflicting inferences on a pivotal issue in the case, the judge may not choose between
those inferences at the summary judgment stage.”
Coyne v. Taber Partners I, 53 F.3d
454, 460 (1st Cir. 1995). 	Furthermore, “[s]ummary judgment is not appropriate
merely because the facts offered by the moving party seem more plausible, or because
the opponent is unlikely to prevail at trial. … If the evidence presented ‘is subject to
conflicting interpretations, or reasonable [people] might differ as to its significance,
summary judgment is improper.’”
	Gannon v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 777 F. Supp.
167, 169 (D.R.I. 1991 (citing and partially quoting 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
Miller & Mary K. Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure Civil, § 2725, at 104 (1983)).
II. 	DISCUSSION
A claim-by-claim approach is warranted.
A. Verizon’s 	Claim 	for 	Enforcement 	of 	an 	Equitable 	Lien 	(29 	U.S.C. 	§
1132(a)(3)(B)(ii))
1. 	Does an Equitable Lien Exist?
Verizon argues that the terms of the Plan created a lien against the proceeds
of the settlement. 	None of the relevant provisions are contained in the Plan itself.
(ECF No. 32-1.) 	Instead, the plaintiff relies on the Summary Plan Description
(“SPD”), a document that, with the Plan, is required to be distributed to beneficiaries
and participants. 	29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). 	Sands first contests whether language in
the SPD can create a lien because it is outside the Plan document. The simple answer
is that the SPD is explicitly incorporated by reference in the section of the Plan that
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
defines “Plan.”5 (ECF No. 32-2 at 3.) Thus it is not merely a supplementary document
but is part of the Plan itself.
Cf. Rhea v. Alan Ritchey, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 3d 870, 874-
75 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (where SPD was the only document and declared itself to be the
Plan, its terms controlled.).6
The SPD, in a section entitled “Subrogation and Third-Party Reimbursement,”
makes crystal-clear that its subrogation rights become ripe if a participant who has
been paid benefits recovers from a third party. (EF No. 32-2 at 21.) It is written in
language as intelligible to laypersons as insurance policies get:
If you recover any charges for covered expenses from a third party (for
example, as a result of a lawsuit from an automobile accident), the Plan’s
provision for subrogation and reimbursement takes effect. … 	In this
example of a car accident, should the Plan provide benefits because of
your accident, the Plan has the right to recover the amount of these
benefits from the negligent person or by obtaining a reimbursement
from that person’s insurance company –
or from you if settlement
amounts have been paid to you by the negligent person or his or her
insurer.
Id. (emphasis supplied).
5 “This document shall incorporate by reference any summary plan description,
summaries 	of 	material 	modifications, 	enrollment 	materials, 	and 	other 	such
communications relative to the Plan as may be approved from time to time by the
Company.” (ECF No. 32-2 at 3.)
6
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), is not to the contrary. 	In CIGNA,
where the Court distinguished between the Plan and the SPD, there was no language
explicitly incorporating the SPD into the Plan itself. 	In addition, the SPD there
contained “misrepresentations” about the plan.
Id. at 445 (Scalia, concurring). Here,
the
only provision about subrogation and reimbursement is contained in the SPD and
so the role of the SPD in this case – consistent with its incorporation by reference into
the plan – is not to simply be “an easily accessible summary of the plan,”
id. at 446,
but a statement of its terms. An SPD may be part of a Plan so long as its provisions
do not conflict with those of the Plan and the insurer demonstrates that the SPD is
part of the Plan.
Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 663 F.3d 1124,
1131 (10th Cir. 2011) (post-
Amara).
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
It goes on,
The subrogation and reimbursement provisions also mean that if you
make a liability claim against a third party after you have received
benefits from the Plan, you must include the amount of those benefits
as part of the damages you claim. If the claim proceeds to a settlement
or judgment in your favor, you must reimburse the Plan for the benefits
you received.
Id.
This 	language 	creates 	a 	lien against 	any 	third-party 	proceeds 	received.
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Weida, 300 F. Supp. 3d 663, 669 (E.D. Pa. 2018). The Sands
firm protests that language immediately following – “You and your dependents must
grant a lien to the Plan” – means that the Plan itself does not create the lien, but
simply instructs the beneficiary to take some
future action to create a lien.7 	Sands
suggests that the future action must be a separate agreement executed by Rogers in
which she consents to a lien. When the paragraph is read together, the defendant’s
interpretation fails. The Plan intends to — and by its emphatic and clear declaration
that the beneficiary must reimburse,
does – create an extant lien. 	Sands cites no
authority suggesting that the language “must grant” implicitly requires some future
action by the beneficiary before the lien becomes enforceable.
7 When the plaintiff asserts in its Memorandum that “the Sands firm does not
challenge the existence of an equitable lien” (ECF No. 43 at 8), that is incorrect.
Sands argues that the Plan only instructed the beneficiary to grant a lien, impelling
that further action, such as the signing of a separate agreement, before a lien could
come into existence. Indeed, the preceding Sands Memorandum begins with a section
subheaded, “1. The Verizon Plan Does Not Establish an Equitable Lien.” (ECF No.
41 at 2.)
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Sands 	cites 	cases 	in which the Plan language explicitly states 	that an
“automatic lien” is created by its terms,
e.g.,
Bd. of Trustees for Laborers Health and
Welfare Trust Fund for N. Cal. v. Hill, No. C 07-5849 CW, 2008 WL 5047705, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2008), or whose declaration of a “first right to reimbursement”
implicitly creates an automatic lien.
	E.g.,
Quest Diagnostics v. Bomani, No. 3:11CV
951 MPS, 2013 WL 3148651, at *2 (D. Conn. June 19, 2013). 	But holding that the
use of language like that creates an enforceable lien does not imply the opposite: that
the absence of such language means a lien is not created. The Court does not accept
that error in logic. 	Any number of cases exist discussing the enforcement of an
equitable lien on language similar to Verizon’s without any separate agreement or
special phrasing. 	Indeed, in the watershed case of
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Med.
Services, 	Inc., 	547 	U.S. 	356, 	359 	(2006), 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	addressed 	the
enforceability of an equitable lien in the face of alleged disbursement of the funds.
The Court described the Plan only as requiring the beneficiary to reimburse Mid
Atlantic for benefits after the beneficiary had settled with a third party.
Id. Not only
is there no indication that the beneficiary had signed a separate agreement, or made
a separate “promise” to reimburse, his attorney had specifically refused to honor the
lien.
	Id. at 360;
see also, Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir. 2009),
abr. on other gnds, Montanile v. Bd. of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Indus. Health
Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. 136, 141 n.2 (2016) (abrogated relative to whether dissipation
of assets destroys equitable lien);
Carpenter Tech. Corp. 300 F. Supp.3d at 669
(equitable lien created by language setting forth the Plan’s right to recovery);
Rhea
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
v. Alan Ritchey, Inc., 85 F. Supp.3d 870, 879 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (where the participant
had a preexisting obligation pursuant to Plan language requiring reimbursement for
benefits paid, an equitable lien by agreement arose).
2. 	Can the Lien Be Enforced Against a Non-participant Attorney?
Sands is the party left standing here. While Rogers was the plan participant
and beneficiary, and the one who was paid the benefits, she is not apparently a viable
party from whom to seek reimbursement. 	Sands protests that as the participant’s
attorney, he was not a signatory to the Plan and its provisions cannot be enforced
against him. That argument fails.
Section 1132(a)(3) permits a fiduciary such as the plaintiff “(A) to enjoin any
act or practice which violates any provision of [ERISA Title 1] or the terms of the
plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations
or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this title or of the terms of the plan.”
Harris Tr. &
Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238, 246 (2000). 	In its creation
of causes of action, the statute “admits of no limit (aside from the “appropriate
equitable relief” caveat …) on the universe of possible defendants.” 	Indeed, §
502(a)(3) makes no mention at all of which parties may be proper defendants …”
Id.
The situation in which the Sands firm finds itself is not unusual. In a number
of similar circumstances, courts have permitted § 1132 lawsuits to go forward against
attorneys who collected settlements from third parties for Plan beneficiaries who had
been paid benefits. In
Synchrony Fin. Welfare Ben. Comm. v. DeMayo Law, No. 3:21-
CV-00376-RJC-DSC, 2022 WL 2600165 (W.D.N.C. July 8, 2022), the DeMayo Law
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Firm settled a car accident claim for its client who had received medical benefits of
$51,760.59. When the firm received the settlement funds, it disbursed only $8,909.19
to the Plan, and the Plan sued the attorney claiming an equitable lien on the proceeds.
Relying on
Harris, and several other cited district court decisions, the Court denied
the attorney’s motion to dismiss. “[T]he overwhelming weight of Supreme Court and
other circuit court authority supports the availability of a claim for equitable relief
against [the attorney and law firm defendants.]”
	Synchrony at *3 (quoting
Barnhill
Contracting Co. v. Oxendine, 105 F. Supp. 3d 542, 549 (E.D.N.C. 2015));
accord,
Kohl’s Dept. Stores v. Castelli, 961 F. Supp. 2d 415, 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (suit against
participant and law firm);
Crawford & Co. Med. Ben. Trust v. Repp., No. 11 C 50155,
2012 WL 716921, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2012);
Mank v. Green, 368 F. Supp. 2d 102,
103 (D. Me. 2005) (lawsuit against beneficiary and her law firm to recover medical
expenses paid her).
3. 	Is the Action an Equitable or Legal One?
Having determined that an equitable lien
was created, and that the Sands firm
is an appropriate defendant from whom Verizon can seek relief, we arrive at the core
issue here, and Sands’ most promising avenue of defense. 	At the time the benefits
were paid to Rogers, there is no question an equitable lien was created stemming
from Verizon’s right to recover what it had paid her if she collected from a third- party
and the requirement that she in fact reimburse Verizon out of those third-party
funds. 	However, Sands alleges that it has disbursed, or dissipated, the $100,000 it
received, asserting that it took $1,007.56 off the top for costs, gave Rogers $62,001.44,
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
paid Equian $5,573.40 for certain health expenses, and retained $31,617.60 as its
40% contingency fee. Further, Sands asserts that it spent its $31,617.60 fee received
on various ordinary operating expenses of the firm’s.
The United States Supreme Court has addressed dissipation of settlement
proceeds by a Plan participant and held squarely that, if the funds have entirely been
dissipated, the viability of the equitable lien that had been created depends on
whether the original funds can be traced to particular items.
Montanile, 577 U.S. at
139. 	If so, then a constructive trust would continue to operate against the items
bought with the settlement proceeds.
Id. If not, however, and the proceeds have been
entirely dissipated on nontraceable items, the equitable lien is eliminated.
	Id. Any
further action to collect on the proceeds would be legal, not equitable, in nature once
the lien has been eliminated.
	Id. at 145. 	And, in that event, § 1132(a)(3) would no
longer authorize an action to recover, as it is explicitly limited to “equitable relief.”
Id. 	at 145-46. 	Equity depends, the Court reasoned, on the principle that the court
can “lay hold of” the property, and if the property is gone (without being replaced by
identifiable assets), no equitable remedy remains.
	Id. 	Expenditure of the entire
identifiable fund destroys the equitable lien.
	Jette v United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
387 F. Supp. 3d 149, 156 (D. Mass. 2019) (§ 1132(a)(3) action to recover overpayments
dismissed where insurer failed to allege the funds were still in the participant’s
possession). 	Moreover, an action against the
general assets of the participant is a
legal action to impose personal liability, again not authorized under § 1132(a)(3).
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Med. Services, 547 U.S. 356, 363 (2006).
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Whether the $100,000 settlement proceeds have been completely disbursed on
nontraceable items is a question of fact.
Montanile, 577 U.S. at 151. And in this case,
it is disputed fact that is very much material to this action. 	Both parties fault the
other for a lack of an adequate factual record to determine the answer. 	The Plan
argues that the Sands firm should have come forward with a detailed accounting of
where 	the 	$100,000 	went, 	complete 	with 	records 	showing 	revenue 	into 	and
expenditures out of the firm’s operating accounts.8 (ECF No. 43 at 3.) Sands argues
that it was up to the Plan to demonstrate that some funds are still in its possession.
(ECF No. 47 at 6.) In either account, the parties seem to agree that the record here
8 Simply comingling the funds with the firm’s operating monies, does not destroy the
lien. If the funds are comingled, but still exist, the lien is not destroyed and recovery
can be had from “the entire pot of money.”
	Montanile, 577 U.S. at 149. 	Sands has
provided an Affidavit and Profit & Loss Statement for the period October – December
2021 (ECF No. 33-A) that in aggregate fashion indicates that he received some
$124,000 in revenue during that period and expensed approximately the same
amount to run the firm. 	Verizon argues that the commingling of the settlement
monies into the firm’s general operating account makes the “lowest intermediate
balance” doctrine applicable.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
is insufficient.9 Thus, a genuine issue of disputed material fact exists that precludes
summary judgment for either one of them.10
9 Sands relies heavily on
Emp. Benefit Plan of Compass Grp. USA, Inc. v. Miller,
Rosnick, D’Amico, August, and Butler, P.C., No. 3:14-cv-00389 (RNC), 2019 WL
4760360 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2019). While the situation described there is much like
that here, there are two important differences. 	First, the Plan did not contest the
entitlement of the participant’s attorney to fees for representation of the participant
against the third party.
	Id. at *4. 	Second, there was a factual record developed
relative to dissipation of the remaining funds. There was supplemental briefing and
supplemental discovery.
	Id. at *3. 	The defendant also waived “any defense to
[Plaintiff’s] claim[s] that may be available pursuant to [Montabile] and which is based
on [Defendant’s] purported dissipation, commingling, or otherwise disbursing its fees
and costs occurred in connection with the legal representation provided to [the
participant].”
Id.
10 Sands asserts he would be entitled to a “reasonable” fee by virtue of the Common
Fund Doctrine which holds that one who recovers for someone else is entitled to a
reasonable fee from the whole.
	U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88, 96
(2013). 	It is an exception to what is known as the “’American’ rule, that each party
to litigation bears its own attorney’s fees, absent a fee-shifting statute.”
	Admin.
Comm. of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs.’ Health & Welfare Plan v. Varco, 338 F.3d
680, 688 (7th Cir. 2003). The Common Fund Doctrine can be abrogated by a particular
Plan, but if a Plan is silent about the allocation of the participant’s third-party
recovery, the doctrine comes into play and “provides the appropriate default.”
McCutchen. at 101.
Verizon claims two provisions in the SPD abrogate the doctrine. 	The first
provides that the Plan “is not responsible for [the participant’s] legal costs.” 	(ECF
No. 32-1 at 21.) 	Verizon’s argument is that not allowing recovery against Sands
would amount to making it, in effect, “responsible” for his fees. 	Second, the SPD
provides that Verizon will require payment “only for amounts recovered that are net
of your legal costs related to the
action.” Id. Verizon argues that “action” refers only
to a filed lawsuit, and that because Rogers’ accident damages resulted from a
settlement without filing litigation, the “net of your legal costs” does not apply.
Therefore, it maintains, the impact is to abrogate the Common Fund Doctrine. The
Doctrine must be specifically and clearly abrogated.
United Airways, 569 U.S. at 102-
04.
The Doctrine is relevant, however, only if the funds have not been totally
dissipated (which Sands claims they have been), a predicate factual issue at dispute
here. 	If they have been totally dissipated, no portion of them would exist to be
reserved for attorney’s fees.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
Therefore, both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment
on Count 2 of the Complaint are DENIED.
B. Sands’ Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint
1. 	Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4)
In Count 1 of his counterclaim, repeated in Counts 1-3 of his third-party
Complaint against Equian and Verizon Communications, Sands outlines a violation
of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) which imposes on certain Plan entities an obligation to
furnish particular written materials to beneficiaries and participants. The provision
requires the Plan administrator,
upon written request of any participant or beneficiary, [to] furnish a
copy of the latest updated summary, plan description, and the latest
annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust
agreement, contract, or other instruments under which the plan is
established or operated.
It is not disputed that Sands made a request, on behalf of Rogers, to be provided with,
on company letterhead, “1. 	Ms. Rogers’ position with Verizon Communications. 	2.
The dates Ms. Rogers was absent after being injured in the accident on 10/27/16. 3.
Ms. Rogers’ hourly rate of pay and the average number of hours she customarily
worked each week.” (ECF No. 33-2.) Equian responded that it would provide those
documents only upon receipt of a subpoena. 	(ECF No. 33-3.)11 	The failure to turn
over the requested information without a subpoena forms the basis of Sands’
11 Further correspondence between Equian and Sands can be found in the Exhibits
to ECF No. 33.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
counterclaim (ECF No. 7 at 7, ¶ 5) and Counts 1 – 3 of the third-party Complaint.
(ECF No. 19.) Sands seeks statutory penalties.
Verizon Communications and Equian pose a number of defenses, but the
clearest is that § 1024 on its face does not require production of “employment records,”
which is what the Sands request sought. 	It mandates the furnishing only of Plan
documents, not specific to any beneficiary or participant. 	There is no dispute about
what was sought and both Verizon Communications and Equian are entitled to
summary judgment on the counterclaim and the third-party complaint.
2. 	Tortious Interference with Contract
Counts 4 and 5 of the third-party Complaint allege that Verizon and Equian,
respectively, tortiously interfered with the contract between Sands and Rogers by
withholding the employment information requested by Sands and, as a consequence,
prevented Sands from representing Rogers zealously. 	That interference, Sands
claims, “diminished the settlement value received and the Firm’s fee.” (ECF No. 19
at ¶ 46.)
Tortious 	interference 	is 	a 	state-law 	claim 	whose 	elements 	include 	an
intentional and improper act, performed with malice. 	Sands alleges that the
insistence on a subpoena before turning over employment information was such an
act. 	The elements of the cause of action are “(1) the existence of a business
relationship or expectancy, (2) knowledge by the interferer of the relationship or
expectancy, (3) an intentional act of interference, (4) proof that the interference
caused the harm sustained, and (5) damages to the plaintiff.”
	Avilla v. Newport
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
Grand Jai Alai LLC, 935 A.2d 91, 98 (R.I. 2007). 	The act of interference must be
improper.
Id. In addition, “[t]here must still … be something ‘illegal’ about the means
employed.”
	Id. (quoting
Tom’s Foods v. Carn, 896 So.2d 443, 458 (Ala. 2004) (ellipse
original)). 	Put another way, “[t]he means used [must rise] to the required level of
wrongfulness.”
Id. at 99 (quoting
Great Escape, Inc. v. Union City Body Co., 791 F.2d
532, 543 (7th Cir. 1986)). 	“Legal malice – an intent to do harm without justification
–” is required.
Roy v. Woonsocket Inst. For Sav., 525 A.2d 915, 919 (R.I. 1987).
Sands has failed to submit any evidence from which it could even be inferred
that either Verizon or Equian acted with the state of mind required or that the means
employed were improper, wrongful or illegal. 	There is nothing improper about
requiring a subpoena, particularly since, as the Court has already found, Sands was
not entitled to the information requested by the terms of 29 U.S.C. § 1024.
Verizon Communications and Equian are entitled to summary judgment on
the third-party Complaint.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Sands’ Motion for Summary Judgment or for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF
No. 31) is DENIED in all respects. The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34)
filed by the Verizon Plan with respect to Count 2 of the Complaint is DENIED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) filed by Verizon Communications and
Equian 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	counterclaim 	and 	the 	third-party 	Complaint 	is
GRANTED.
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
IT IS SO ORDERED:
____________________________________
Mary S. McElroy,
United States District Judge
Date: March 15, 2023
Case 1:21-cv-00110-MSM-PAS Document 49 Filed 03/15/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>