NOT PRECEDENTIAL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) 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 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

(a). We have appellate jurisdiction under

. We exercise plenary review and apply the same standard as does the District Court. Edinboro Coll. Park Apartments v. Edinboro Univ. Found.,

(3d Cir. 2017).

3