Benjamin RECHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, 687 F. App'x 49

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Benjamin Reches challenges the district court’s decisions granting Defendant-appellee Morgan Stanley’s motion to dismiss certain of his claims and denying him limited discovery. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the procedural history of this matter, the underlying facts, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs claims, “accepting as true the factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Dekalb Cty. Pension Fund v.

Transocean Ltd., 817 F.3d 393, 400-01 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015)). I. Statute of Limitations The district court did not err in dismissing as untimely the Plaintiffs claims of entitlement to pension and stock benefits. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion, noting in particular only a few salient points.

First, the district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs claims accrued when he learned that he was being classified as a leased employee or independent contractor, because that information constituted notice that the Defendant had repudiated the Plaintiffs eligibility for employee benefits, including pension and stock option benefits. See Carey v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 363 Pension Plan, 201 F.3d 44, 49 (2d Cir. 1999). The Plaintiff acknowledges that he was contemporaneously aware of his non-employee classification from 1985 to 1990 and again from 1997 to 2001.

His complaint, filed in 2016, was thus well outside the six-year limitations period that applies to ERISA claims. Burke v. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP Long Term Disability Plan, 572 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2009). Second, the district court, extending to the pro se Plaintiff the “special solicitude” he was due, see Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994), carefully considered an equitable tolling theory that the Plaintiff did not articulate coherently in his submissions. The district court did not err in rejecting this theory upon finding no “extraordinary circumstance,” see Mottahedeh v.

United States, 794 F.3d 347, 352 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)), sufficient to justify the application of such a “drastic remedy,” see A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States, 656 F.3d 135, 144 (2d Cir. 2011). Third, with respect to the Plaintiffs challenges to the propriety of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the Plaintiffs claim for pension benefits in Count Two on timeliness grounds, we acknowledge that we have held that a sua sponte dismissal based on the statute of limitations is ordinarily not proper. See, e.g., Davis v.

Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1987) (“If a defendant fails to assert the statute of limitations defense, the district court ordinarily should not raise it sua sponte”). But we have also held that “district courts may dismiss an action sua sponte on limitations grounds in certain circumstances where ‘the facts supporting the statute of limitations defense are set forth in the papers [a] plaintiff himself submitted.’ ” Walters v. Indus. & Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.3d 280, 293 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 609 n.11 (2d Cir. 1980)).

This case presents precisely such circumstances. All of the operative facts were set forth in the Complaint. Additionally, the substantially similar legal issue of the timeliness of the Plaintiffs claim for stock benefits in Count Four was fully briefed before the district court. In these circumstances, the district court committed no error in dismissing sua sponte on limitations grounds the Plaintiffs claim for pension benefits. In sum, there was no error in any aspect of the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs claims for pension and stock benefits on timeliness grounds.

We have considered all of the Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary and find them without merit. II. Remaining Issues Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the matter on the basis of the statute of limitations, we need not reach the issue of whether the Plaintiff was required to exhaust any available administrative remedies. Similarly, we need not address the underlying substantive questions of whether the Plaintiff was in fact eligible for benefits under the plan when he was a leased employee or independent contractor.

In other words, to the extent that the Plaintiff argues that he should have received benefits during those time periods despite his classification as a leased employee or independent contractor, that claim too is time-barred under the analysis above. Moreover, we "need not consider whether the Settlement Agreement between the parties bars any of the Plaintiffs claims.

Finally, because the disposi-tive statute of limitations question requires no consideration of any materials outside the four corners of the Complaint, we need not address the issue of whether it was proper for the district court to consider Plan documents in deciding the motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.