388, 404 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc). Consequently, a claimant must plead plan ambiguity in this Circuit to state a claim for estoppel relative to an ERISA claim for benefits. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 456 (6th Cir.2003). Putney did not plead in his complaint, nor did he present any evidence before the district court, that the Plan was in any way ambiguous. The district court did not err in holding that the Plan is not, in fact, ambiguous, and in dismissing Putney’s promissory estoppel claim under Rule 12(b)(6). D. O.R.C. § 3999.32 is a criminal statute that provides for criminal penalties for noncompliance. Putney therefore has no standing to invoke that statute. See Biomedical Innovations, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 103 Ohio App.3d 122, 658 N.E.2d 1084, 1086 (1995) (<HOLDING>) (citing Atlantic & Great W. Ry. Co. v. Dunn,
holding that a claim for civil damages based on alleged violation of criminal statute under which criminal penalties result was properly dismissed because criminal violations are brought not in the name of the individual party but rather by and on behalf of the state of ohio or its subdivisions holding that the final termination of the criminal proceedings occurred when criminal charges  were dismissed with prejudice rather than when the accused was released from prison pending a retrial holding the mcarn exception requirefs that the acts complained of warrant the imposition of criminal penalties as opposed to mere civil penalties holding that a judgment that requires the performance of an act is enforceable by civil and criminal contempt penalties emphasis omitted holding that a criminal statute does not provide a corresponding civil cause of action