Smith v. Fidelity Workplace Services LLC

facts indicating that Smith submitted a “claim for benefits” as a participant or beneficiary of an 25 ERISA-governed plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1133. 26 Overall, the FAC does not plausibly establish that Smith has a stake in the funds in 27 question. It also does not plausibly allege that defendants did anything wrong. In effect, the FAC says only that approximately $21,318.43 was transferred out of Smith’s wife’s plan in 2008 for unknown reasons. Dkt. No. 35 at 2. Nothing in the FAC pushes this transfer into the realm of an ERISA violation, even assuming the statute applies, or any other wrongful conduct. As the FAC currently stands, it is equally probable that the transfer was proper, which is not enough for purposes of Rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S., 544, 557 (2007)). It is also worth noting that, assuming ERISA applies, the FAC does not establish that Smith exhausted his…