CourtListener opinion 10806016

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ARTHUR BORNSTEIN, 
 Case No. 23–cv–02849–ESK–EAP 
 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY 
COMPLANY, 
 Defendant. 

ARTHUR BORNSTEIN, 
 Case No. 25–cv–00701–ESK–EAP 
 Plaintiff, 

 v. 
 OPINION 
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY 
COMPLANY, 
 Defendant. 

KIEL, U.S.D.J. 
 THESE NON-CONSOLIDATED MATTERS are before the Court on 
defendant McMaster-Carr Supply Company's motion to dismiss the amended 
complaint (Motion) (Bornstein I1 ECF No. 48). Plaintiff filed an opposition to 
the Motion. (ECF No. 53.) McMaster-Carr did not file a reply to plaintiff's 
opposition. For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted. 
Additionally, because plaintiff asserts the same claims against McMaster-Carr 
in the matter under Case No. 23-cv-00701 (Bornstein II), the Court will sua 

 1 Case No. 23-cv-02849 will be referred to as "Bornstein I." 
sponte dismiss the claims against McMaster-Carr and remand the Bornstein II 
case to the Superior Court of New Jersey. 
 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) 
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal granted McMaster-Carr's motion for a 
more definite statement. (ECF No. 43.) Judge Pascal discerned the original 
complaint to assert a claim against McMaster-Carr for "improperly releas[ing] 
$700,000 from [p]laintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to 
[p]laintiff." (Id. p. 2.) Plaintiff claims he was entitled to some of the money in 
the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. 
p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of 
deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)"aside from making the conclusory 
statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts 
identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act"; (2) "[t]he 
general allegation of an ERISA violation in the [original complaint] is ‘so vague 
[and] ambiguous' that [McMaster-Carr] would not be able to form a meaningful 
response"; (3) "[p]laintiff does not make a clear connection between the 
[McMaster-Carr] and the claims" in the original complaint; and (4) although 
the original complaint "makes references to a divorce proceeding and other state 
court proceedings … without a clear connection to [McMaster-Carr], the 
purpose of these allegations are unclear." (Id. p. 6, 7.) 
 Plaintiff, thereafter, filed three iterations of amended complaints. (ECF 
Nos. 44, 45, 46.) The Court considers the third amended complaint (ECF No. 
46 (Compl.) to be the operative complaint. The operative complaint does little 
to clear up what the bases for plaintiff's claims against McMaster-Carr are. 
However, plaintiff summarizes his claims as follows: 
 Plaintiff brings this Complaint seeking among other 
 things, relief under 29 U.S.C. 203(d) et seg. in connection 
 with defendants' refusal and failure to hold and protect a 
 QDRO account $'s due the Alternate Payee, violating its 
 fiduciary duties under ERISA, and equitable relief under 
 ERISA, known as the Employee Retirement Income 
 Security Act of 1974, as amended (\ERISA\"); 29 U.S.C.