Robert H. Heptinstall v. Monsanto Company. Inc.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 5, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-12665
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-01564-CV-4-CLS
ROBERT H. HEPTINSTALL,
WENDELL E. SIMS,
JAMES L. COLLINS,
JACKY T. BLACKWELL,
THOMAS F. CAMPBELL,
J. RUSSELL NEWMAN,
FRED D. WORKS,
as individuals and class representatives,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
BILLY J. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
versus
MONSANTO COMPANY, INC.,
a corporation,
MONSANTO COMPANY SALARIED EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN,
MONSANTO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE,
MONSANTO COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE,
PHARMACIA CORPORATION,
a corporation,
SOLUTIA INC. EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN,

-- 1 of 3 --

SOLUTIA INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 5, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case presents facts and issues indistinguishable from those already
considered and decided by this court in Gilley v. Monsanto Co., 490 F.3d 848
(11th Cir. 2007). Robert Heptinstall and his co-plaintiffs, all former employees of
Monsanto Company, Inc. (collectively “Heptinstall”), appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their action against the Monsanto Company, Inc. and several related
entities. Heptinstall alleged that he was a vested member of the Monsanto1
Company Salaried Employees’ Pension Plan (“the Plan”) and that the Plan
wrongfully denied him his vested benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement
The district court dismissed Heptinstall’s suit for lack of standing to sue under ERISA, but it1
actually should have dismissed for failure to state a claim. Heptinstall’s claims are due to be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. In Gilley, this court
addressed a factually indistinguishable case involving the same Plan, the same
method of calculating years of service, and a plaintiff-employee who started and
stopped working for Monsanto at the same time as did Heptinstall (and brought by
one of the same attorneys who represented Heptinstall in this appeal) and held that
the plaintiff-employee had not accumulated enough years of service, so his benefits
had not yet vested. Gilley controls the outcome here. Heptinstall puts forth
various arguments as to why Gilley should not apply, but they all in essence ask us
to reconsider that decision, and one panel of this court may not overrule a prior
panel’s decision. Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing Heptinstall’s claim with
prejudice is
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --