← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 203209

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
pending
Docket / number
pending
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 5/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 203209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.

Retrieval annotation

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.

Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

Evidence quotes

QDRO

e affirm, albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\QDROs\")and are

retirement benefits

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1208 DAVID R. GEIGER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. FOLEY HOAG LLP RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] Before Lipez, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Howard, Circuit Judge. David R. Geiger, pro se. Ann Wagner, with whom Frances M. Giordano and Rubin and Rudman, LLP were on brie

domestic relations order

albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\QDROs\")and are

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
pending
Generated at
May 14, 2026

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

United States Court of Appeals
 For the First Circuit

No. 07-1208

 DAVID R. GEIGER,

 Plaintiff, Appellant,

 v.

 FOLEY HOAG LLP RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL.,

 Defendants, Appellees.

 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

 [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]

 Before

 Lipez, Circuit Judge,

 Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

 and Howard, Circuit Judge.

 David R. Geiger, pro se.
 Ann Wagner, with whom Frances M. Giordano and Rubin and
Rudman, LLP were on brief, for appellee.

 March 27, 2008
 HOWARD, Circuit Judge. The genesis of this appeal is a

contentious Massachusetts divorce. As part of the distribution of

marital property, a state court judge assigned a portion of David

Geiger's interest in three retirement plans to his (now ex) wife,

Karen Leeds. In addition to exhausting his state court appeals of

the divorce order, Geiger filed suit in federal court against the

retirement plans and their administrator,1 seeking to permanently

enjoin the plans from transferring Geiger's interests to Leeds.

After Leeds successfully moved to intervene in the suit, she filed

a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted pursuant to

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. On appeal, Geiger contends that the

district court first erroneously allowed Leeds's intervention, and

then incorrectly granted the motion to dismiss. We affirm, albeit

for reasons different than those cited by the district court.

 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

 At the heart of this legal battle are the orders

addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those

orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\QDROs\")and are