the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON On Appeal from the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 20-2492
_______________
THE CLAUDE WORTHINGTON BENEDUM FOUNDATION,
Appellant
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2:19-cv-00132
District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
______________________
Argued: May 13, 2021
_______________
Before: McKEE, JORDAN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: June 3, 2021)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jason A. Archinaco [Argued]
Michael A. O’Leary
The Archinaco Firm
1100 Liberty Avenue
Suite C-6
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Counsel for Appellant
Jayme L. Butcher [Argued]
Shawna J. Henry
Richard M. Weibley
Blank Rome
501 Grant Street
Suite 850
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellees
______________
OPINION*
______________
McKee, Circuit Judge.
The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation appeals the District Court’s
decisions to grant The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Bank of New York
Mellon’s motions to dismiss. Benedum contends the District Court erred in dismissing
all three claims: fraud, breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged false representations,
and breach of fiduciary duty based on an alleged duty to reveal “best pricing.”
In exceptionally well-reasoned and thorough opinions, the District Court explained
why it granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss against Benedum. We can add little to
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the Court’s explanations. Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set
forth by the District Court in its thoughtful and thorough opinions dated November 26,
2019 and June 18, 2020.1
We add only that, in addition to the reasons relied upon by the District Court, the
“Release of BNY Mellon,” in paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement, precludes
Benedum from filing this suit because Benedum explicitly waived the underlying claims.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of Mellon’s motions to
dismiss.
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review and apply the same
standard as does the District Court. Edinboro Coll. Park Apartments v. Edinboro Univ.
Found., 850 F.3d 567, 572 (3d Cir. 2017).

-- 3 of 3 --