Bartnett v. Abbott Labs.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Heide K. Bartnett originally filed this action against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Corporate Benefits, the Abbott Laboratories Stock Retirement Plan, and Marlon Sullivan alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) [*2] , 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. R. 1. Her complaint brought similar allegations against Alight Solutions, LLC ("Alight"). All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). R. 26; R. 33. In an order dated October 2, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions. R. 52. Following that order, Bartnett filed her first amended complaint against Abbott Labs and Sullivan (collectively, "the Abbott Defendants"), and Alight. R. 54. Now before the Court is the Abbott Defendants' motion to dismiss Bartnett's amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). R. 59. For the reasons stated below, that motion is granted.

Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the "sufficiency of the complaint." Berger v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 843 F.3d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 2016). A complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), sufficient to provide defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and the basis for it. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). This standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must "contain sufficient factual [*3]  matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "'A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In applying this standard, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2018).

Background ¹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.