CourtListener opinion 4696743

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2021

 United States Court of Appeals
 for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
 Fifth Circuit

 FILED
 June 17, 2021
 No. 20-20641 Lyle W. Cayce
 Summary Calendar Clerk

 Medora Chetlin,

 Plaintiff—Appellant,

 versus

 Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation,

 Defendant—Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District Court
 for the Southern District of Texas
 USDC No. 4:19-CV-1986

 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
 Per Curiam:*
 Medora Chetlin filed this suit against Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation
 ("Exxon") after it denied her claim for her deceased ex-husband's
 retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

 *
 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
 opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
 circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
 Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021

 No. 20-20641

 1974 ("ERISA"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
 Exxon. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
 I. Facts & Procedural History
 Nathan Broussard was employed by Exxon from 1968 to March 1982.
 He was enrolled in the Mobil Oil Retirement Annuity Plan. Broussard and
 Chetlin were married the first six years that Broussard worked for Exxon and
 divorced in 1974. As a result of the divorce proceedings, Chetlin was awarded
 a community property interest in Broussard's retirement plan with Exxon.
 After Broussard left Exxon, the terms of the plan provided that he would be
 entitled to a straight life annuity of $241.46 a month after his calculated
 retirement date of January 1, 2008 plus his total contribution amount of
 $280.68. The plan further provided that, in the event of his death prior to
 January 1, 2008, Broussard's designated beneficiary, Chetlin, would receive
 his $280.68 contribution plus interest. Broussard passed away in February
 2007, less than a year before his retirement date.
 In November 2012, Exxon sent a letter to Chetlin informing her that
 she was eligible for a refund of Broussard's contribution plus interest. Chetlin
 responded to Exxon twice requesting information about his contribution but
 did not receive an immediate response. In August 2013, Exxon requested that
 Chetlin complete and return a form for a contribution refund along with
 Broussard's death certificate. The parties then ceased communicating with
 each other.
 Approximately six years later in May 2019, Chetlin filed suit in state
 court against Exxon claiming that she was wrongfully denied Broussard's
 retirement benefits. Exxon removed to federal court based on ERISA
 preemption. Then in July 2019, Exxon sent Chetlin another letter denying
 her request for any benefits exceeding those detailed in its November 2012
 letter, explaining that she was only entitled to a refund of Broussard's

 2
 Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2021

 No. 20-20641

 contribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of
 $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to
 Broussard's contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of
 death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that
 would have provided her with a spouse's benefit such as an annuity. The
 letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits
 determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed
 this lawsuit.
 Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not
 the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed to exhaust her administrative
 remedies, and that its denial of benefits determination was supported by the
 record and the terms of Broussard's retirement plan. Chetlin responded that
 the terms Exxon claimed were in effect during Broussard's employment were
 not and that the administrative record was likely incomplete.
 The magistrate judge issued a memorandum and recommendation to
 the district judge concluding that (1) Exxon was not the proper defendant and
 Chetlin's claims against it could be dismissed on that basis; (2) because it
 took seven years for Exxon to provide Chetlin with the information and
 documents she sought from the retirement plan and she had no other way to
 obtain the information needed to make a formal claim for benefits, she was
 excused on equitable grounds for failure to exhaust her administrative
 remedies; and (3) Exxon's determination that Chetlin was limited to a refund
 of Broussard's contribution plus interest was supported by the administrative
 record and the terms of the retirement plan. On these grounds, the magistrate
 judge recommended that Chetlin's claims be dismissed with prejudice.
 The district court adopted the magistrate judge's memorandum and
 recommendation, agreeing that the benefits decision was proper and
 supported by the administrative record. The court declined to decide,

 3
 Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/17/2021

 No. 20-20641

 however, whether Exxon was the proper defendant on the basis that it was
 not the only determinative issue in the proceedings. The court noted that
 Chetlin's claim that the record was incomplete failed because she had the
 opportunity to further develop the record but had not done so. Accordingly,
 because Chetlin failed to present any evidence beyond speculation as to the
 accuracy of the plan's terms, her claims could not survive summary
 judgment. In light of this conclusion, the district court granted summary
 judgment in favor of Exxon and held that Chetlin was only entitled to a refund
 of Broussard's contribution plus interest.1
 II. Standard of Review
 We review grants of summary judgment de novo. West v. City of
 Houston, 960 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Petzold v. Rostollan, 946
 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 2019)). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the
 movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
 Although the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the
 nonmoving party, it may not rely on "conclusional allegations and
 unsubstantiated assertions" as evidence. West, 960 F.3d at 740 (quoting
 Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011)).
 III. Discussion
 On appeal, Chetlin asserts that the district court erred in granting
 summary judgment because (1) there was a material dispute as to whether
 Exxon is the proper defendant; (2) the ERISA benefits determination was

 1
 As the district court noted, this amount totaled $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019 and
 continues to accrue interest until Chetlin receives payment.

 4
 Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/17/2021

 No. 20-20641

 incorrect; and (3) the administrative record was incomplete. We are
 unpersuaded by these arguments.
 As a preliminary matter, the district court declined to hold whether
 Exxon was the proper defendant in these proceedings because it could decide
 the case on the basis that the benefits decision was correct and supported by
 the administrative record. We agree with this reasoning. Although Chetlin
 disagrees with the benefits decision here, she has failed to present evidence
 negating its accuracy. She alleges that the record is "likely" incomplete but,
 as the district court observed, she had ample time to develop the record prior
 to summary judgment but failed to do so. Exxon provided Chetlin with a copy
 of the retirement plan and an explanation of benefits available to Chetlin
 based on Broussard's contribution.2 Chetlin's disagreement with Exxon's
 numbers is of no consequence because she provides no evidentiary support
 for her claim that the benefits determination is incorrect. Rather, she merely
 speculates that Exxon has not provided a complete and accurate record to
 support its calculations. As the district court properly concluded, that is not
 enough to survive summary judgment. See West, 960 F.3d at 740
 ("[C]onclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be
 relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party."). The district court did not
 err in granting summary judgment in favor of Exxon.
 IV. Conclusion
 For the foregoing reasons, the district court's summary judgment is
 AFFIRMED.

 2
 Chetlin argues that the retirement plan that Exxon provided from July 1982 may
 not be the plan in place at the time of Broussard's employment since he left Exxon in March
 of 1982. As the district court points out, however, Chetlin had the opportunity to resolve
 any discrepancies regarding the plan prior to summary judgment but failed to do so.

 5