Anderson v. Entergy Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MELISSA ANNE ANDERSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-2097
ENTERGY CORPORATION ET AL. 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	are 	Defendant 	Karen 	Orso 	Anderson’s 	Motion 	to
Dismiss 	(Doc. 	19); 	Defendant 	Savings 	Plan 	of 	Entergy 	Corporation 	and
Subsidiaries and Entergy Employee Benefits Committee’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 25); and Defendant T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc.’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 27). For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the proper beneficiary of a
401(k) plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”). The facts are largely undisputed. Plaintiff Melissa Anne Anderson
is the ex-wife of the deceased, Shannon Anderson. Defendant Karen Orso
Anderson was Mr. Anderson’s wife of four months at the time that he died.
Prior to his death, Mr. Anderson was employed by Entergy Services, LLC and
participated in the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, a
tax-qualified 401(k) plan governed by the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA
(“the 	Plan”). 	Defendant 	Entergy 	Employee 	Benefits 	Committee 	(“the

2
Committee”) is the Plan administrator. At the time of Mr. Anderson’s death,
Plaintiff was listed as the beneficiary to his Plan account. However, the express
terms of the Plan document provide that “in the event a Participant or former
Participant is married, such Beneficiary shall be deemed to be the Participant’s
or former Participant’s surviving spouse.”1 It further states that designation of
a beneficiary other than the surviving spouse “shall not be effective unless such
surviving spouse provides written consent which acknowledges the effect of
such election and is witnessed by a Plan representative or a notary.”2 In
addition, the beneficiary form that the decedent executed naming Plaintiff as
his beneficiary during their marriage reiterated this point and expressly stated
that: “If you become married or marry a different person after you sign this
form, be sure to update this form because a later marriage will automatically
revoke your prior beneficiary designation.”3 In light of these express terms, the
Plan administrator deemed Defendant Karen Orso Anderson, the decedent’s
surviving spouse, beneficiary under the Plan. Defendant Karen Orso Anderson
declined to consent in writing to waive her acceptance of the funds in favor of
another 	beneficiary. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Plan 	administrator 	distributed 	the
balance of decedent’s Plan account to Defendant Karen Orso Anderson.
Plaintiff filed a claim for benefits under the Plan, asserting that she is
the rightful beneficiary. The Plan administrator denied Plaintiff’s claim for
benefits, and her subsequent appeal of that decision was also denied. Plaintiff
filed this pro se action on October 7, 2025 naming Karen Orso Anderson, the
1 Doc. 25-2 at 8.
2 Id.
3 Doc. 25-4.

3
Plan, the Committee, and T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc. (“T.
Rowe”) as defendants.4 She asserts claims under ERISA and state tort law and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. She also asks the Court to require
that the Energy Savings Plan be amended and that the appeals process be
revised. Defendants have filed three motions to dismiss, asserting similar
arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against them. Plaintiff opposes.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”5 A claim is
“plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”6
A court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and must “draw
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”7 The court need not, however,
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.8 To be legally
sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the
plaintiff’s claims are true.9 If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief,
the court must dismiss the claim.10 The court’s review is limited to the
4 Although Plaintiff’s Complaint initially named Entergy Corporation as a defendant,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint correctly identifying the Entergy defendants.
5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 547 (2007)).
6 Id.
7 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
8 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
9 Id.
10 Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57.

4
complaint and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are
central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.11
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants ask this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s ERISA claims and state
law tort claims. The Court will consider each in turn.
A. ERISA Claims
Plaintiff’s claim 	under ERISA 	is 	best 	characterized 	as 	a claim for
wrongful 	denial 	of 	benefits 	pursuant 	to 	Section 	502(a)(1)(B).12 	Section
502(a)(1)(B) “provides a private right of action for persons alleging entitlement
to benefits, or seeking to enforce or clarify rights, pursuant to the terms of an
ERISA plan.”13 “A denial of benefits under an ERISA plan is reviewed either
de 	novo 	or, 	where 	the 	plan 	delegates 	discretionary 	authority 	to 	an
administrator or fiduciary to determine eligibility for benefits or to interpret
the terms of the plan, for an abuse of discretion.”14 The Plan at issue here
grants the fiduciary discretionary authority, and therefore this Court reviews
Plaintiff’s claim under an abuse of discretion standard.15
At the outset, the Court considers whether Plaintiff can properly assert
an ERISA claim against each of the Defendants. In the Fifth Circuit, a denial
of benefits claim under ERISA is appropriate against the plan itself and
“the party that controls administration of the plan.”16 According to the Plan,
11 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
12 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).
13 Perdue v. Burger King Corp., 7 F.3d 1251, 1254 (5th Cir. 1993).
14 Id.
15 Doc. 25-2 at 71–72.
16 LifeCare Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Ins. Mgmt. Adm’rs Inc., 703 F.3d 835, 845 (5th Cir.
2013).

5
the Committee has “all powers and authority” to administer the Plan and
resolve all questions of eligibility for benefits.17 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ERISA
claim is appropriate against the Committee and the Plan.
However, Plaintiff has not alleged—and there is no indication in the
Plan—that either Defendant T. Rowe or Karen Orso Anderson exercise any
control over the administration of the Plan. T. Rowe contends that it is a non-
discretionary recordkeeper that acts solely at the direction of the Committee.
The Fifth Circuit has held that the performance of “mechanical administrative
tasks” without discretion is insufficient to create liability for denial of a
benefits claim.18 In addition, there is no indication that Karen Orso Anderson,
as a Plan beneficiary, had any control over the administration of the Plan.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ERISA claims against Defendants T. Rowe and Karen
Orso Anderson are dismissed.
Plaintiff “has the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to benefits
under an ERISA plan.”19 The facts pleaded by Plaintiff in her Complaint and
Amended Complaint, however, belie any entitlement to benefits. Plaintiff
admits that the language of the Plan unambiguously declares the participant’s
surviving spouse to be the beneficiary unless a waiver is executed. Plaintiff
admits that Defendant Karen Orso Anderson was the participant’s surviving
spouse and that she refused to consent in writing to waive her rights to the
Plan account. Accordingly, based on the plain language of the Plan and the
17 Doc. 25-2 at 71–72.
18 LifeCare Mgmt. Servs. LLC, 703 F.3d at 845. The Fifth Circuit recently held that T.
Rowe is not a fiduciary under similar circumstances. LeBoeuf v. Entergy Corp., No. 24-30583,
2025 WL 1262414, at *4 (5th Cir. May 1, 2025).
19 LifeCare Mgmt. Servs. LLC, 703 F.3d at 845.

6
undisputed facts, Karen Orso Anderson is the proper beneficiary under the
Plan. Fiduciaries are required to discharge their duties with respect to a plan
“in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar
as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of
[ERISA].”20 Indeed, even ERISA itself contemplates such a result as set forth
in 	29 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1055 	and 	specifically 	provides 	protections 	for 	surviving
spouses.21 Further, Plaintiff and decedent had a duty to inform themselves
regarding 	the 	Plan 	terms, 	and 	the 	fiduciaries 	are 	not 	liable 	for 	their
confusion.22
Plaintiff’s argument appears to rely on her belief that this result is
inequitable and contrary to the decedent’s wishes. Even assuming the facts
alleged on these points are true, however, the result is the same. The Plan
administrator 	acted 	in 	compliance 	with 	the 	Plan 	terms, 	and 	this 	Court
therefore cannot say that it abused its discretion. This Court also cannot, as
Plaintiff suggests, decide who is most deserving of the amount at issue.23
Finally, this Court does not have the power to rewrite the Plan or the appeals
process. “A court is not free to re-write statutory text even when equitable
20 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D).
21 See id. § 1055; Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 843 (1997) (“While some individual
account plans escape § 1055’s surviving spouse annuity requirements under certain
conditions, Congress still protects the interests of the surviving spouse by requiring those
plans to pay the spouse the nonforfeitable accrued benefits, reduced by certain security
interests, in a lump-sum payment.”); LeBoeuf, 2025 WL 1262414, at *4 (affirming dismissal
of breach of fiduciary claims in a factually similar case); Doc. 25-3 (benefit denial letter
explaining relevant ERISA provisions).
22 LeBoeuf, 2025 WL 1262414, at *5.
23 Doc. 23 at 7.

7
considerations may support a different result.”24 Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot
state a claim for wrongful denial of ERISA benefits against the Plan or the
Committee based on the undisputed facts alleged, and amendment of her
Complaint would be futile.
B. State Tort Claims
Plaintiff’s Complaint also sets forth a claim under state tort law for
mental anguish damages. Defendants the Plan, the Committee, and T. Rowe
argue 	that 	ERISA 	preempts 	these 	claims 	against 	them. 	Indeed, 	ERISA
preempts state law claims that “relate to” an ERISA plan.25 “The Supreme
Court has held that a state law ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan under §
1144(a) ‘if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.’”26 Here, any
claims that Plaintiff intends to pursue against the Plan, the Committee, or T.
Rowe arise out of the claims handling process. Plaintiff therefore cannot bring
a state law claim for mental anguish caused by her pursuit of Plan benefits
against those Defendants.27
Even 	so, 	Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	relating 	to 	emotional 	distress
predominately reference actions taken by Defendant Karen Orso Anderson
24 In re Chandni, LLC, 570 B.R. 530, 532 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2017).
25 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).
26 Light v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 790 F.2d 1247, 1249 (5th Cir.
1986) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96–97 (1983)).
27 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004) (stating that where a party
has a claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) “and where there is no other independent legal duty
that is implicated by a defendant’s actions, then the individual’s cause of action is completely
pre-empted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)”).

8
after the death of Shannon Anderson and during the funeral and succession
proceedings. These allegations are not “related to” the ERISA plan and are
therefore not preempted. Defendant Karen Orso Anderson has not set forth
any argument for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law tort claim against her.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Motions 	are 	GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s
ERISA claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff’s state law tort claims against Defendants Savings Plan of Entergy
Corporation and Subsidiaries, Entergy Employee Benefits Committee, and T.
Rowe 	Price 	Retirement 	Plan 	Services, 	Inc. 	are 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE. Only Plaintiff’s state law claim for mental anguish against
Karen Orso Anderson remains.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE