QDRO: efendant shall retain his State of Connecticut Pension Plan. CT Page 13032 The Plaintiff shall receive all of the Defendant's IRA Paine Webber account shown on Defendant's financial affidavit and one-half of the Deferred Comp. Phoenix Account by rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall maintain Cobra health insurance benefits for the benefit of the Plaintiff through his employment with the State for a period of three years or her earlier remarriage or death. The Defendant shall retain his 1996 Chevrolet automobile and hold the Plaintiff harmless as concerns any lien or loan thereon. The Plaintiff shall retain he


Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie

pension: Having gone through bankruptcy, the Defendant has only several nominal debts of approximately $3,663.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Defendant's financial affidavit reflects firearms valued at $4,800.00, a Paine Webber IRA valued at $2,981.00 and invested pension benefits of $4,070.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. The Plaintiff has debts amounting to $2,200.00 incurred since bankruptcy and her only asset is her 1994 Toyota with an equity of $7,400.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. CT Page 13029 According to the health form, the Plaintiff's education extended through two years of college. The Defendant's education e


domestic relations order: hall retain his State of Connecticut Pension Plan. CT Page 13032 The Plaintiff shall receive all of the Defendant's IRA Paine Webber account shown on Defendant's financial affidavit and one-half of the Deferred Comp. Phoenix Account by rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall maintain Cobra health insurance benefits for the benefit of the Plaintiff through his employment with the State for a period of three years or her earlier remarriage or death. The Defendant shall retain his 1996 Chevrolet automobile and hold the Plaintiff harmless as concerns any lien or loan thereon. The Plaintiff shall retain he


Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin

Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin Date: 1995-12-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin

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.


Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin

QDRO: ebt int he approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant and he shall further hold the plaintiff harmless thereon. 9. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff 50% of his retirement from the United States Air Force. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other appropriate order shall be prepared and submitted to the court in order to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. The court shall retain jurisdiction over said QDRO. The defendant shall agree to execute any and all documentation necessary in order to effectuate said transfer. 10. Any settlement from plaintiff's personal injury case shall be her


Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin

401(k): y hold in their names solely. The defendant shall name the plaintiff beneficiary on a life insurance policy in the face amount of $100,000.00 so long as he is obligated to pay alimony to the plaintiff. 7. The defendant shall retain the value of his existing 401k with the Robert E. Morris Co. in the approximately amount of $3,224.00 and his IRA with Shawmut Bank in the approximately amount of $5,922.00. 8. The parties shall each remain responsible for those debts listed on their respective financial affidavits. The Sears Home Improvement debt int he approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibilit


Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin

domestic relations order: approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant and he shall further hold the plaintiff harmless thereon. 9. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff 50% of his retirement from the United States Air Force. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other appropriate order shall be prepared and submitted to the court in order to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. The court shall retain jurisdiction over said QDRO. The defendant shall agree to execute any and all documentation necessary in order to effectuate said transfer. 10. Any settlement from plaintiff's personal injury case shall be her


Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle

Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle Date: 1991-04-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle


Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle

QDRO: isions of 46b-84 (c) are entered as an order. Alimony The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $50 per week until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the


Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle

pension: until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the plaintiff's entitlement to COBRA medical coverage through the defendant's employment, which coverage shal


Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle

domestic relations order: 46b-84 (c) are entered as an order. Alimony The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $50 per week until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.

Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman. Date: 2001-10-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.

QDRO: n the nature of support, and shall not be dischargable in bankruptcy. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J.


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.

retirement benefits: the court finds that they interfere with her ability to work at the present and will in the future. When the husband unilaterally terminated medical insurance coverage for the wife and children after becoming unemployed she obtained her own, but has never had retirement benefits. The principal cause for the dissolution of the marriage was the husband's frequent absences, first to pursue his own avocational and recreational interests and later because he took jobs that were far away. An additional cause was his preoccupation with pornographic materials, which was offensive to the wife and not carefully guarded by him from the chi


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.

401(k): y. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J.


Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.

domestic relations order: re of support, and shall not be dischargable in bankruptcy. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J.


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda Date: 1997-07-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

QDRO: money market account. The balance of that account is awarded to the defendant. 9. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of his IRA that was converted from his Acme United Profit Sharing Plan or $11,310, whichever sum is greater, by QDRO. 10. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's retirement plan from Acme United Corporation. The defendant is ordered to elect a joint and survivor option under that plan naming the plaintiff as survivor. The transfer is to be by QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the language of the QD


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

retirement benefits: $181 in his People's Bank checking account. He has a 1994 Toyota Camry with a fair market value of $12,000, a loan balance of $10,862, and an equity of $1138. He has $22,620 in an IRA that was converted from his Acme United Profit Sharing Plan. He also has a retirement plan for employees of Acme that will pay $8791 per year under a 100 percent joint survivorship election. The account that was originally opened up in the amount of $56,861, shown on plaintiff's exhibit eleven, had transferred from it $10,000 that is shown on plaintiff's exhibit twelve. On September 23, 1996, the parties entered into a written agreement for e


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

pension: nder that plan naming the plaintiff as survivor. The transfer is to be by QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the language of the QDROs ordered herein. The one-half awarded to the plaintiff is based on the value of the defendant's pension plan as of the date he commences to receive pension benefits. 11. The 1997 Honda shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, having a value of $17,000 and a loan balance of $14,000 and an equity of $3000, is ordered transferred solely in the name of the plaintiff. CT Page 7602 12. The People's Bank account shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavi


Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda

valuation/division: oth parents having reasonable, liberal and flexible rights of visitation with the child. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody and joint custody and visitation, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enter


Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik

Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik Date: 1994-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik

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.


Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik

QDRO: ue of the marital home from the date of the marriage to the present time and the value of the motor vehicle and motorcycle. H. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a 30% interest in the present day value of the defendant's present pension plan. A QDRO shall be prepared by the plaintiff to effectuate this award. I. Life insurance CT Page 539 1. The defendant shall name the plaintiff and the minor child as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policies for so long as the defendant has an obligation for support and/or alimony. This provision snail be modifiable. J. Counsel Fees 1.


Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik

pension: months of date and the balance six months thereafter. 2. In arriving at this amount, the court has considered the increase in value of the marital home from the date of the marriage to the present time and the value of the motor vehicle and motorcycle. H. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a 30% interest in the present day value of the defendant's present pension plan. A QDRO shall be prepared by the plaintiff to effectuate this award. I. Life insurance CT Page 539 1. The defendant shall name the plaintiff and the minor child as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policies for s


Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan Date: 1999-09-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


QDRO: male, whichever is the first to occur. 6. The plaintiff shall name the defendant as beneficiary on his $100,000.00 SGLI life insurance for as long as he has an alimony obligation to the defendant. 7. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of QDRO, or equivalent method, 50% of the present value of plaintiff's Navy pension, namely $296 per week, and shall also provide the defendant with a survivor benefit package relative to said pension. 8. The plaintiff shall pay all the parties' joint debts without any contribution from the defendant. 9. Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Vasingt


pension: age has broken down irretrievably. I find the plaintiff more at fault for the breakdown than the defendant. The plaintiff, who was born March 12, 1956, appears to be in good health. He is presently a Commander in the United States Navy. He has a vested Navy pension and would receive $592.00 per week if he retired now. However, his pension benefits will increase as he continues his service in the Navy. Presently plaintiff receives an annual base pay of $61,464.00 plus $12,000.00 allowance, $1,800.00 assistance and submarine pay of $7,140.00 per year for a total yearly income of $82,332.00. In addition, he recently re


survivor benefits: as he has an alimony obligation to the defendant. 7. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of QDRO, or equivalent method, 50% of the present value of plaintiff's Navy pension, namely $296 per week, and shall also provide the defendant with a survivor benefit package relative to said pension. 8. The plaintiff shall pay all the parties' joint debts without any contribution from the defendant. 9. Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Vasington, JTR CT Page 13193


Cody v. Cody

Cody v. Cody Citation: 2019 ND 14. Extracted reporter citation: 2019 ND 14. Docket: 20180120. Date: 2019-01-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Cody v. Cody is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


Cody v. Cody

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Cody v. Cody

pension: erving jurisdiction on Beverly Cody's request for a spousal support award. On January 19, 2018, Beverly Cody served and filed a request for clarification of the memorandum opinion, asking the court to clarify its order regarding the distribution of Lee Cody's pension. On February 1, 2018, the court granted the request. On February 7, 2018, the court entered an order for judgment, incorporating its January 11 opinion and clarifying that the court directed a division of the pension benefit consistent with the Bullock formula, which resulted in a division of the pension benefits earned during the marriage equally between t


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K. Citation: 2019 Pa. Super. 251. Extracted reporter citation: 2019 Pa. Super. 251. Docket: 856 MDA 2018 CONNER. Date: 2019-08-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 3/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

retirement benefits: and's first and second issues concern his Judicial Income, which implicate the interplay of federal and state law. In his first issue, Husband asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that the annuity he receives upon satisfying the Rule of 80 is a retirement benefit subject to equitable distribution. Section 371 of the United States Code reads, in relevant part: § 371. Retirement on salary; retirement in senior status (a) Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold office during good behavior may retire from the office after attaining the age and meeting the service requirements, whether conti


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

pension: ired in 2017. While at Dickinson Law School, Wife held various positions, including Director of Public Interest Programs and Faculty Supervisor for Externship Placement. At the time of the equitable distribution hearing, Wife was unemployed but receiving a pension through her Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System (SERS). On April 2, 2015, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. On November 10, 2016, Husband filed a petition for bifurcation, seeking to separate the divorce action from ancillary economic claims. Wife filed an answer to Husband's petition and a separate petition raising economic claims on N


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

alternate payee: l pension and Husband's Judicial Income. Husband argues: In direct contrast with a defined benefit plan, [Husband's Judicial Income] does not have a [s]ummary [p]lan [d]escription; [Husband] is not considered a participant in a plan; does not provide for alternate payee status; provides no options upon retirement such as a single life annuity; and, has no vesting schedule. [Husband's Judicial Income] payment to federal judges is the same as their salary; whereas the monthly benefit under a defined benefit plan is calculated based on the participant's most recent average salary but is less than the salary (and could be


Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.

survivor benefits: the Rule of 80,1 is entitled to receive "an annuity equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired." 28 U.S.C.A. § 371 (Judicial Income). Moreover, Husband can elect to participate in a judicial survivors' annuity system (JSAS), "a voluntary survivor benefit plan that provides annuities to the survivors of certain Article III judges." Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/18, at 2; ____________________________________________ 1The Rule of 80 refers to the age and service requirements for retirement under Section 371. Specifically, a justice or judge is eligible for a salary annuity once the sum of their age and years of


Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant Citation: 59 Cal. 4th 602. Extracted reporter citation: 59 Cal. 4th 602. Docket: S209376 Date. Date: 2014-07-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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.


Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


retirement benefits: statute or parties‘ agreement — are available for services at trial and on appeal.‖ In Morcos v. Board of Retirement, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 927 (Morcos), holding Government Code section 31536 (fees for successful action to reverse administrative denial of retirement benefits) authorizes attorney fees for defending the superior court judgment on appeal, we relied on ―settled case law which has established the general principle that statutes authorizing attorney fee awards in lower tribunals include attorney fees incurred on appeals of decisions from those lower tribunals.‖ Neither decision relies on the Enforcement of Judgments


CourtListener opinion 10000340

CourtListener opinion 10000340 Extracted case name: In re the Matter of Jaime Dion Wright and Bradley Eugene Wright. Extracted reporter citation: 811 F.2d 1249. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10000340 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10000340

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.


CourtListener opinion 10000340

QDRO: jurisdiction to do so after the federal court rules. 1 (Id.) The Pinnacle West Defendants stated—both in their Response to Ms. Dion's Motion 2 and at oral argument—that the company intends to comply with any judgment to divide 3 the Plan assets, whether a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") from Maricopa 4 County Superior Court or an order from this Court. (See Doc. 62 at 2.) 5 The Court notes that Ms. Dion filed this case on March 15, 2021, only four months 6 before Maricopa County Superior Court issued the Dissolution Decree. (Doc. 1.) Ms. 7 Dion's counsel stated at oral argument that the federal case was necessary because the


CourtListener opinion 10000340

retirement benefits: g before the Court is Plaintiff Jaime Dion's Motion for Summary Judgment 16 ("Motion"). (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff also filed a Statement of Facts in Support of her Motion. 17 (Doc. 58.) Defendants Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Supplemental Excess Benefit 18 Retirement Plan, Pinnacle West Administrative Committee, and Pinnacle West Capital 19 Corporation (collectively the "Pinnacle West Defendants") filed a Response in which they 20 took no position on Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. 62.) Defendant Bradley Wright filed a 21 Response to Plaintiff's Motion, (Doc. 66), and filed a Controverting Statement of Facts in 22 support of t


CourtListener opinion 10000340

ERISA: argues that it would be an error for this 16 Court to decline jurisdiction. (Doc. 71 at 11.) Mr. Wright argues that this case is 17 unnecessary and that the issue should be handled by the state court. (Doc. 66 at 1, 9.) 18 "Congress has expressly provided ERISA beneficiaries with the choice between a 19 state or federal forum in their actions to recover benefits." Transamerica Occidental Life 20 Ins. Co. v. DiGregorio, 811 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has long 21 held that "a district judge has discretion to decline jurisdiction in favor of pending state 22 court litigation when a party s


CourtListener opinion 10000340

domestic relations order: ion to do so after the federal court rules. 1 (Id.) The Pinnacle West Defendants stated—both in their Response to Ms. Dion's Motion 2 and at oral argument—that the company intends to comply with any judgment to divide 3 the Plan assets, whether a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") from Maricopa 4 County Superior Court or an order from this Court. (See Doc. 62 at 2.) 5 The Court notes that Ms. Dion filed this case on March 15, 2021, only four months 6 before Maricopa County Superior Court issued the Dissolution Decree. (Doc. 1.) Ms. 7 Dion's counsel stated at oral argument that the federal case was necessary because the


CourtListener opinion 10038059

CourtListener opinion 10038059 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10038059 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.


CourtListener opinion 10038059

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 10038059

domestic relations order: a opposes reconsideration. (See Opp'n to Mot., ECF No. 73.) Neither 2 Tera nor Alec opposed summary judgment or this Motion. 3 III. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 4 Michele requests the Court take judicial notice of a dissolution judgment and a 5 stipulated domestic relations order issued in her state court divorce proceedings with 6 Decedent. (Michele's Req. Judicial Notice ("RJN"), ECF No. 71.) The Court may take 7 judicial notice of proceedings in other courts "if those proceedings have a direct relation 8 to matters at issue." United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) 9 (quoting United States ex rel. Robinson


CourtListener opinion 10069466

CourtListener opinion 10069466 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 1011. Docket: 360. Noting a legal issue percolating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10069466 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


CourtListener opinion 10069466


CourtListener opinion 10069466

QDRO: Settlement Administrator will calculate and 1 Former Participant. Settlement Agreement ¶ 6.8.2(a). Further, the Settlement Administrator will 2 advise the Former Participant: first, that the settlement payment is rollover eligible; and second, 3 that if a Qualified Domestic Relations Order applies to the payment, they are responsible for 4 complying with such Order. Id. ¶¶ 6.8.2(b)-(c). Similarly, the Settlement Administrator will issue 5 checks to any Current Participants who have a greater than zero-dollar ($0) account balance as of 6 the date settlement payments are made (e.g., Current Participants who close their Plan account 7 before


CourtListener opinion 10069466

retirement benefits: letter briefing before Magistrate Judge Westmore. See Dkt. 27 No 482 (or "Mot.") at 2-3. 1 Class, consisted of only current and former participants in the BlackRock Plan. Id. The other 2 class, the putative CTI Class, consisted of participants in numerous retirement plans whose 3 retirement savings were invested in certain BlackRock collective trust investment vehicles that 4 engaged in securities lending. Id. On February 11, 2020, the Court certified the BlackRock Plan 5 Class but denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify the CTI Class. Dkt. No. 360. Plaintiffs sought but 6 were denied a Rule 23(f) appeal of the Court's den


CourtListener opinion 10069466

ERISA: Settlement Agreement, 27 unless brought against the Independent Fiduciary alone. 1 a. Any rights or duties arising out of the Settlement Agreement, including the 2 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; 3 b. Claims of individual denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 4 1132(a)(1)(B) that do not fall within sections (a)-(e) above; 5 c. Wages, labor, or employment claims unrelated to the Plan; 6 d. Any claims which were or may be asserted on behalf of the non-certified CTI Class 7 other than the claims belonging to the BlackRock Plan Class; or 8 e. Claims arising exclusively from conduct a


CourtListener opinion 10069466

domestic relations order: t Administrator will calculate and 1 Former Participant. Settlement Agreement ¶ 6.8.2(a). Further, the Settlement Administrator will 2 advise the Former Participant: first, that the settlement payment is rollover eligible; and second, 3 that if a Qualified Domestic Relations Order applies to the payment, they are responsible for 4 complying with such Order. Id. ¶¶ 6.8.2(b)-(c). Similarly, the Settlement Administrator will issue 5 checks to any Current Participants who have a greater than zero-dollar ($0) account balance as of 6 the date settlement payments are made (e.g., Current Participants who close their Plan account 7 before


CourtListener opinion 10074239

CourtListener opinion 10074239 Extracted reporter citation: 342 F.3d 903. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10074239 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10074239


CourtListener opinion 10074239

QDRO: aims, Hartford filed the instant Complaint in Interpleader 11 in August 2021. Both Defendants filed answers with cross-claims. Kowalski seeks a declaratory 12 judgment that she, as legal guardian of E.K., is entitled to the proceeds because the LSA is a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security 14 Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). She therefore contends that her claim takes 15 precedence over that of Valois. In the alternative, she argues Valois is not entitled to any of the 16 benefits because she "exerted undue influence and control over [Marc] Kowalski such that she was 1


CourtListener opinion 10074239

pension: "elevat[ing] a plan participant's legal obligations, 4 commonly to a former spouse or children of a previous marriage, over the participant's express 5 wishes to provide for other individuals as designated beneficiaries." Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.- 6 Prod. Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 425 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a threshold 7 question in this case is whether Kowalski's LSA is a QDRO; if it is, then it must take precedence 8 over Valois as the designated beneficiary. 9 The criteria for a QDRO are listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056. This section requires that a QDRO 10 clearly specify: 11 (i) the name and


CourtListener opinion 10074239

ERISA: ki seeks a declaratory 12 judgment that she, as legal guardian of E.K., is entitled to the proceeds because the LSA is a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security 14 Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). She therefore contends that her claim takes 15 precedence over that of Valois. In the alternative, she argues Valois is not entitled to any of the 16 benefits because she "exerted undue influence and control over [Marc] Kowalski such that she was 17 improperly listed as the beneficiary." Kowalski Cross-Claim ¶ 80. Finally, Kowalski brings a 18 second


CourtListener opinion 10074239

alternate payee: esignated beneficiary. 9 The criteria for a QDRO are listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056. This section requires that a QDRO 10 clearly specify: 11 (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee 12 covered by the order, 13 (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such 14 amount or percentage is to be determined, 15 (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and 16 (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 17 18 29 U


CourtListener opinion 10076278

CourtListener opinion 10076278 Extracted reporter citation: 234 F.3d 27. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10076278 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10076278

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.


CourtListener opinion 10076278

QDRO: ions for summary judgment to resolve 20 this question. Valois argues she is entitled to the policy proceeds because she is the named 21 beneficiary. Meanwhile, Kowalski contends her minor son, E.K., has a superior right to the funds 22 under the terms of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as defined by the Employee 23 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This order 24 concludes Kowalski's position is correct, and as such, her motion is granted, and Valois' is denied. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 The factual background of this action was previously summarized, but it is restated here 27 for referen


CourtListener opinion 10076278

retirement benefits: 16 each of these two plans would be under $800,000, could Kowalski argue E.K. was entitled to 17 $800,000 across both plans? These and other questions would readily abound — and that's only 18 with two plans in play. E.g., Vyas, 2017 WL 3841809, at *3 (six retirement plans at issue). 19 On these facts, however, the language is clear when read in the appropriate context, and the 20 fourth QDRO requirement is thus satisfied. Valois' additional argument that the LSA need not 21 provide increased benefits is a non-starter. The LSA in no way requires Hartford to "affirmatively 22 afford a type or form of benefit not establish


CourtListener opinion 10076278

pension: 4 with cross-claims, and these cross-motions for summary judgment on the QDRO issue followed. 25 26 1 As the Ninth Circuit has observed, this particular field of law, "unfortunately, requires some tolerance for acronyms." Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Prod. Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 27 415, 419 (9th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 255 F.3d 661. 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when "there 3 is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 4 law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).


CourtListener opinion 10076278

ERISA: she is the named 21 beneficiary. Meanwhile, Kowalski contends her minor son, E.K., has a superior right to the funds 22 under the terms of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as defined by the Employee 23 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This order 24 concludes Kowalski's position is correct, and as such, her motion is granted, and Valois' is denied. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 The factual background of this action was previously summarized, but it is restated here 27 for reference. "Marc Kowalski died on December 30, 2020. Prior to his death, Mr. Kowalski 1 Inc.,"


CourtListener opinion 10077430

CourtListener opinion 10077430 Extracted reporter citation: 361 F.3d 566. Docket: 99. 21 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10077430 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


CourtListener opinion 10077430


CourtListener opinion 10077430

QDRO: ime during the Class Period (August 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020), including any 6 beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in the 7 case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the 8 Class Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants, including the individual members of the Board of Directors of LinkedIn 9 Corporation, and the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee, and their beneficiaries, during the Class Period. 10 Mot. 2; see Decl. of Kolin C. Tang ISO P


CourtListener opinion 10077430

ERISA: 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 9 IN RE LINKEDIN ERISA LITIGATION ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 10 ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR 11 ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 12 Re: ECF No. 148 13 Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson (collectively, 14 "Plaintiffs") filed this putative class action individually and as participa


CourtListener opinion 10077430

401(k): COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 12 Re: ECF No. 148 13 Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson (collectively, 14 "Plaintiffs") filed this putative class action individually and as participants of the LinkedIn 15 Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust ("the Plan") against Defendants LinkedIn 16 Corporation ("LinkedIn"), LinkedIn Corporation's Board of Directors ("the Board"), and LinkedIn 17 Corporation's 401(k) Committee ("the Committee") asserting breach of their fiduciary duties under 18 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et


CourtListener opinion 10077430

alternate payee: 5 All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time during the Class Period (August 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020), including any 6 beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in the 7 case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the 8 Class Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants, including the individual members of the Board of Directors of LinkedIn 9 Corporation, and the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee, and their beneficia


CourtListener opinion 10080106

CourtListener opinion 10080106 Extracted reporter citation: 250 F.3d 668. Docket: 50. Oppositions were 25. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10080106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10080106


CourtListener opinion 10080106

QDRO: eptember 13, 2017, the District Court 231st Judicial District of Tarrant 16 County issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay $55,533.03 in child support arrearages 17 to Young. Id. ¶ 22. According to the FAC, Young subsequently submitted a 401(k) 18 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("401(k) QDRO") and Stock Domestic Relations 19 Order ("Stock DRO") to the District Court 231st Judicial District of Tarrant County for 20 the court's signature. Id. ¶¶ 24, 32. Plaintiff alleges that the 401(k) QDRO submitted 21 sought to transfer to Young 100 percent of the benefits held in Plaintiff's account in the 22 401(k) Plan, and the Sto


CourtListener opinion 10080106

pension: tion of the QDRO and Stock DRO, which, for the reasons stated 3 above would be barred by Rooker-Feldman. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the sixth 4 cause of action with prejudice. See Williams-Ilunga v. Directors/Trustees of Producer- 5 Writers Guild of Am. Pension Plan, 682 F. App'x 633, 634 (9th Cir. 2017) 6 ("Under Rooker-Feldman, there is no defect to be cured: a subsequent federal claim is 7 completely barred if it amounts to ‘a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.'") 8 (citing Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004)). 9 In sum, the Court DISMISSES the fourth and sixth causes of a


CourtListener opinion 10080106

ERISA: 8,010 Incentive Stock 27 Options were transferred to Young pursuant to the Stock DRO. Id. ¶ 57. 28 1 The FAC was filed on June 19, 2019. ECF No. 45. The FAC alleges the following 2 causes of action: 3 First Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as to 4 Defendants Ligand and Does 1-20 for improperly 5 approving the 401(k) QDRO 6 Second Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty as to Defendant Ligand 7 for ignoring information that called into question 8 the validity of the 401(k) QDRO 9 Third Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty as to Defendant Ligand 10 for failure to follow ERISA proc


CourtListener opinion 10080106

401(k): CV-2856-GPC-MSB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING 16 INCORPORATED, LIGAND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO 17 PHARMACEUTICALS SEAL; DENYING DEFENDANT INCORPORATED 401(k) PLAN; and YOUNG'S MOTION FOR 18 DOES 1 through 20, SANCTIONS 19 Defendants. [ECF Nos.: 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 58] 20 21 22 Before the Court are Defendant Carla Young's ("Young") motion to dismiss the 23 first amended complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 46, and Defendant Ligand Pharmaceuticals 24 Incorporated's ("Ligand") motion to dismiss the FAC. ECF No.


CourtListener opinion 10082165

CourtListener opinion 10082165 Extracted reporter citation: 425 U.S. 738. Docket: 8. Plaintiff. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10082165 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10082165


CourtListener opinion 10082165

QDRO: f's objection. 26 4 Because this matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true the 27 allegations set forth in the complaint. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. Of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). 28 1 relations order (‘QDRO')." Id. ¶ 14. Defendants did not notify Plaintiff that the MSA 2 was accepted as a QDRO or that "a purported ‘domestic relations order' had been 3 submitted to them for division of Mr. Sargent's benefits under the Plan dictating that a 4 portion thereof to be assigned to Plaintiff." Id. ¶ 15. Further, Defendants did not notify 5 Plaintiff of the Plan's


CourtListener opinion 10082165

pension: must first isolate and define the underlying 2 violation upon which . . . [plaintiff's] claim is founded." Ziegler v. Connecticut Gen. Life 3 Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 548, 550–51 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Meagher v. Int'l Ass'n of 4 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Pension Plan, 856 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir. 1988)). 5 Here, Plaintiff alleges several actions that breached Defendants' fiduciary duties, some of 6 which appear to involve breaches occurring in or around 2008. See Compl. ¶¶ 42–45. 7 However, in her opposition brief, Plaintiff clarifies and emphasizes that the alleged 8 breach "arises out of the arbitrary and ca


CourtListener opinion 10082165

ERISA: S' MOTION TO DISMISS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Milissa Ann Sargent ("Plaintiff") alleges three causes of action: (1) an Employee 20 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") claim for benefits pursuant to 29 21 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim pursuant to 29 22 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1132(a)(3); and (3) declaratory relief. Doc. No. 1 ("Compl.").1 23 Defendants Edison 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan"), Southern California Edison Company 24 Benefits Committee ("Committee"), Plan Administrator of the E


CourtListener opinion 10082165

401(k): 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILISSA ANN SARGENT, Case No. 20-cv-1296-MMA (RBB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Milissa Ann Sargent ("Plaintiff") alleges three causes of action: (1) an Employee 20 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") claim for benefits pursuant to 29 21 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim pursuant to 29 22 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1132(a)(3); an


CourtListener opinion 10082976

CourtListener opinion 10082976 Extracted reporter citation: 967 F.2d 1298. Docket: 18. Plaintiff. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10082976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10082976

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.


CourtListener opinion 10082976

QDRO: ff was awarded and is entitled to a portion of Mr. Sargent's 12 benefits under the Plan." Id. ¶ 13. In March 2008, Mr. Sargent provided a copy of the 13 MSA to the Plan Administrator, who accepted the MSA as a "valid qualified domestic 14 relations order (‘QDRO')." Id. ¶ 14.4 Defendants did not notify Plaintiff that the MSA 15 was accepted as a QDRO or that "a purported ‘domestic relations order' had been 16 submitted to them for division of Mr. Sargent's benefits under the Plan dictating that a 17 18 19 subsequently used by Plaintiff. See Sargent v. S. California Edison 401(k) Sav. Plan, No. 20-CV-1296- MMA


CourtListener opinion 10082976

pension: declaratory relief claim is premised on her remaining ERISA claim. See 19 Compl. ¶ 50. Because Plaintiff does not state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, she 20 does not state a claim for declaratory relief. See Circle v. W. Conference of Teamsters 21 Pension Tr., No. 3:17-cv-00313-YY, 2017 WL 4102490, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 31, 2017), 22 report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Trina Circle v. W. Conference of 23 Teamsters Pension Tr., No. 3:17-cv-00313-YY, 2017 WL 4102584 (D. Or. Sept. 15, 24 2017) ("Plaintiff has attempted to assert stand-alone claims for declaratory judgment and 25 rescission. However, dec


CourtListener opinion 10082976

ERISA: v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 18] Defendants. 16 17 18 Milissa Ann Sargent ("Plaintiff") seeks relief under the Employee Retirement 19 Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Doc. No. 1 ("Compl.").1 Defendants Edison 20 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan"), Southern California Edison Company Benefits Committee 21 ("Committee"), Plan Administrator of the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan 22 Administrator"), and Southern California Edison Company ("Company" or "SEC") 23 (collectively, "Defendants")2 move for judgment on the pleadin


CourtListener opinion 10082976

401(k): 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILISSA ANN SARGENT, Case No. 20-cv-1296-MMA (RBB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 13 v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 18] Defendants. 16 17 18 Milissa Ann Sargent ("Plaintiff") seeks relief under the Employee Retirement 19 Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Doc. No. 1 ("Compl.").1 Defendants Edison 20 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan"), Southern California Edison Company Benefits Committee 21 ("Committee"), Plan Administrator of th


CourtListener opinion 10084971

CourtListener opinion 10084971 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: JCF32230 was affirmed on direct. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10084971 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.


CourtListener opinion 10084971

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 10084971

domestic relations order: tencing as to his prior strike and serious felony enhancements, that the Court of Appeal's opinions require his release. They do not. Franklin's judgment of conviction for making a criminal threat in 24 violation of Cal. Penal Code § 422 and disobeying a domestic relations order in violation of Cal. Penal 25 Code § 273.6(a) in Superior Court Case No. JCF32230 was affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Franklin, 2017 WL 382692, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Jan. 27, 2017) (D068891) (unpub.). The Court 26 of Appeals did vacate Franklin's subsequent resentencing order, and remanded the case again, but only to afford him


CourtListener opinion 10086617

CourtListener opinion 10086617 Extracted reporter citation: 142 S. Ct. 7. Docket: 103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10086617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10086617


CourtListener opinion 10086617

QDRO: Plaintiff 18,010 stock options in two lots 12 ("Incentive Stock Options"). Id. ¶ 26. 13 Plaintiff alleges that in late 2017, Young and law firm KoonsFuller1 14 "surreptitiously" prepared a document purported to be a qualified domestic relations 15 order ("QDRO") seeking 100 percent of the benefits in Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account 16 (the "401(k) QDRO"). Id. ¶ 30. The Texas 231st court signed the 401(k) QDRO on or 17 about November 21, 2017. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff alleges he was not notified that the 401(k) 18 QDRO was submitted to the Texas 231st court and was not given an opportunity to 19 review, approve, or


CourtListener opinion 10086617

retirement benefits: icipant had retired on the date on which such payment is to 27 begin under such order (but taking into account only the present value of 1 1056(d)(3)(D)(i)5 only applies if the Plan Participant had already "reached the age where 2 he is eligible to receive retirement benefits under the terms of the pension plan, but he [had] 3 not actually retired or terminated his employment." Id. at 133-34 (citing legislative history). 4 § 1056(d)(3)(E)(ii) defines the "earliest retirement age" as either: "(1) the date on which 5 the participant is entitled to a distribution under the plan; or (2) the later of the date of the 6 participan


CourtListener opinion 10086617

pension: . & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 301- 17 02 (2009) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080, 1084 (7th Cir. 18 1994)). A plan administrator is not required to determine questions of law or resolve 19 factual disputes. Id. "[U]nder ERISA, the pension plan must pay the bearer of a DRO if it 20 determines that the order is a proper QDRO, without further inquiry; compliance with a 21 QDRO is obligatory.'" Trs. of the Dirs. Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits 22 Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 424 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A) ("Each 23 pension plan shall provide for the payment


CourtListener opinion 10086617

ERISA: his entire 401(k) account to Young as well as 18,010 11 Incentive Stock Options to Young with a present value in excess of $4 million. Id. ¶ 68. 12 The SAC filed on May 25, 2022 alleges the following causes of action: 13 First Cause of Action: Violation of ERISA as to Defendant Ligand for 14 distributing the 401(k) in violation of the Plan 15 terms 16 Second Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as to 17 Defendant Ligand and Does 1-20 for failing to 18 determine whether the requirements for the 19 qualified status of a DRO are satisfied 20 Third Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under


CourtListener opinion 10086655

CourtListener opinion 10086655 Extracted reporter citation: 869 F.2d 1298. Docket: 117. Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10086655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10086655

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 10086655

QDRO: ments and factual representations in the 21 Second Amended Complaint were not so frivolous as to warrant Rule 11 sanctions. 22 First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff misrepresented the lack of notice he received 23 as to the Texas court entering the 401(k) QDRO and Stock DRO. Plaintiff and Defendant 24 appear to be talking past each other on this point. In the Motion for Sanctions, Young 25 argues Plaintiff Lundstrom received notice of the March 22, 2017 and April 5, 2017 26 hearings, and that this fact is uncontested. ECF No. 113-1 at 10. Plaintiff responds that 27 1 his notice of those hearings is irrelevan


CourtListener opinion 10086655

pension: mine that the complaint is well-founded. See also Truesdell v. So. 22 Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 209 F.R.D. 169, 174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Cases warranting the 23 impositions of sanctions for frivolous complaints are "rare and exceptional," Operating 24 Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 26 1 The cited page numbers refer to CM/ECF pagination. 27 1 28 U.S.C § 1927 states that an attorney may not "multipl[y] the proceedings in any 2 case unreasonably and vexatiously." Sanctions under § 1927 must be supported by a 3 finding of subjective bad faith. New Alaska Dev. Corp., 869 F.


CourtListener opinion 10086655

401(k): CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 13 v. YOUNG'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; 15 [ECF No. 113] LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 16 401(k) PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Defendant Young's ("Defendant" or "Young") Motion for 20 Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 21 ECF No. 113. Plaintiff Brian Lundstrom ("Plaintiff" or "Lundstrom") filed a Response on 22 September 14, 2022. ECF No. 117. Defendant Y


CourtListener opinion 10087073

CourtListener opinion 10087073 Extracted reporter citation: 608 F.3d 1118. Docket: 45. 25 Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10087073 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


CourtListener opinion 10087073

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.


CourtListener opinion 10087073

QDRO: options. 7 Id. ¶ 26. Both the 401(k) Plan account and the stock options are at issue. 8 In his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 9 Young and law firm KoonsFuller "surreptitiously" prepared a document purporting to be 10 a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") seeking transfer of all the benefits in 11 Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account (the "401(k) QDRO") to Defendant Young. Id. ¶ 30. 12 Plaintiff alleged he was not notified the 401(k) QDRO was submitted to the Texas court 13 and was not given an opportunity to review, approve, or contest the validity of the Order. 14 Id. ¶¶ 32-34. 15 As to the stock


CourtListener opinion 10087073

ERISA: preclusion, in the first instance." Id. at 6. 8 On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his SAC. ECF No. 92. Plaintiff's SAC alleged 9 five causes of action as to Defendant Young: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) conversion; (3) 10 equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA; (4) equitable and injunctive relief under 11 state law; and (5) breach of contract as intended third-party beneficiary. Id. ¶¶ 125-176. 12 Defendant Young filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 97. Plaintiff conceded 13 dismissal of the breach of contract claim. ECF No. 120 at 32-33. In its October 27, 2022 14 Order, the Court dismissed the four re


CourtListener opinion 10087073

401(k): 10 11 BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. YOUNG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 14 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LIGAND 15 [ECF No. 123] PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 401(k) 16 PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On November 10, 2022, Defendant Carla Young ("Defendant" or "Young") filed a 20 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. ECF No. 123. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff Brian 21 Lundstrom ("Plaintiff" or "Lundstrom") filed an Opposition. ECF No. 140. On January 22 10, 2023, Young filed a Reply. ECF No. 141. For th


CourtListener opinion 10087073

domestic relations order: 7 Id. ¶ 26. Both the 401(k) Plan account and the stock options are at issue. 8 In his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 9 Young and law firm KoonsFuller "surreptitiously" prepared a document purporting to be 10 a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") seeking transfer of all the benefits in 11 Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account (the "401(k) QDRO") to Defendant Young. Id. ¶ 30. 12 Plaintiff alleged he was not notified the 401(k) QDRO was submitted to the Texas court 13 and was not given an opportunity to review, approve, or contest the validity of the Order. 14 Id. ¶¶ 32-34. 15 As to the stock


CourtListener opinion 10088634

CourtListener opinion 10088634 Extracted reporter citation: 425 U.S. 391. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10088634 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10088634


CourtListener opinion 10088634

QDRO: most knowledgeable ("PMK"), Matt Korenberg; and Ligand's General 25 Counsel, Charles Berkman, to answer questions regarding Berkman and Warfield- 26 Graham's communications with outside counsel at Latham & Watkins LLP ("Latham & 27 Watkins") related to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), whose execution 2 After carefully reviewing the Parties' Joint Discovery Motion, supporting exhibits, 3 and the authorities cited therein, the Court finds this motion suitable for ruling on the 4 pleadings presently before the Court. The Court finds that Ligand's communications 5 with outside counsel at Latham & Watkins were directed to Defend


CourtListener opinion 10088634

pension: losure to the beneficiary, courts "focus on the ‘intended recipient of 6 the advice and the purpose for which it is sought,'" rather than on a distinction between 7 fiduciary and non-fiduciary activities. Ely v. Bd. of Trustees of PACE Indus. Union-Mgmt. 8 Pension Fund, 334 F.R.D. 289, 294–95 (D. Idaho 2020) (quoting Fischel v. Equitable Life 9 Assurance, 191 F.R.D. 606, 609 (N.D. Cal. 2000)) ("[C]ourts should . . . focus on whether 10 the advice was sought for the benefit of the beneficiaries, as opposed to whether the 11 advice is sought for the trustee's own protection."). One court construed the Mett rule 12


CourtListener opinion 10088634

ERISA: 6 and only three causes of action remain against Ligand and the 401(k) Plan: (1) Ligand 7 distributed the benefits in Plaintiff's 401(k) account in violation of the 401(k) Plan's 8 terms, (ECF No. 120 at 27); (2) Ligand violated section 1056(d)(3)(G)(i) of ERISA by failing 9 to promptly provide Plaintiff a copy of the 401(k) Plan's procedures for determining the 10 qualified status of a Domestic Relations Order, by not having a written policy in place 11 outlining those procedures, and failing to send Plaintiff a written notification that the 12 QDRO had satisfied the requirements under the 401(k) Plan and the


CourtListener opinion 10088634

401(k): 02] 14 CARLA YOUNG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Joint Discovery Motion, filed by Plaintiff Brian 18 Lundstrom ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated ("Ligand") 19 and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan") (collectively 20 "Defendants") ("the Parties"), which asks this Court to determine whether certain 21 communications between Ligand employees and outside counsel are protected from 22 discovery by Plaintiff based on the attorney-client privilege. (ECF No. 202.) Specifically, 23 Plaintiff seeks to compel Ligand's Chief People Off


CourtListener opinion 10089520

CourtListener opinion 10089520 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Docket: 242. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10089520 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10089520


CourtListener opinion 10089520

QDRO: Exclude Expert Testimony. ECF No. 215. That 26 motion is DENIED as moot. The Parties' Motions to Seal and Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. ECF Nos. 217, 219, 229, 232. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 At the heart of this six-year-old case rests a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 3 ("QDRO"), signed by a state court judge in Texas and served upon Ligand in December 4 of 2017, directing the transfer of Plaintiff's entire 401(k) savings to his ex-wife, Carla 5 Young. ECF No. 120. Ligand notified Plaintiff of the QDRO in January of 2018. Id. at 6 3. Plaintiff immediately sought to invalidate the QDRO in the Texas state appellate 7


CourtListener opinion 10089520

retirement benefits: not otherwise permitted 14 under the pension plan and to disburse pension funds to the alternate payee spouse prior 15 to the participant James Dickerson reaching age 55 which is the earliest retirement age 16 when he is eligible to begin receiving normal retirement benefits under the terms of the 17 SERF plan." Id. at 134. In other words, the decree didn't qualify as a QDRO because it 18 required immediate distribution in violation of the plan's terms. The court further 19 concluded that 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(E)—which provides certain exceptions by which 20 "[a] domestic relations order shall not be treated as failing to


CourtListener opinion 10089520

pension: ated in the QDRO. But facts 8 developed through discovery have rendered Dickerson distinguishable. In Dickerson, the 9 court was asked whether a divorce decree constituted a valid QDRO where the decree 10 required immediate distribution of the ex-husband's pension benefits—even though the 11 ex-husband was not yet eligible for distribution, and the pension plan's terms did not 12 provide for early distributions. Id. at 131. The court reasoned that the decree could not 13 be a QDRO because it required the plan "to provide a benefit not otherwise permitted 14 under the pension plan and to disburse pension funds to


CourtListener opinion 10089520

ERISA: ging the 15 validity of the QDRO, and the Court dismissed each of Plaintiff's claims that attempted 16 to relitigate the issue in federal court. ECF No. 120. Only three claims remain: 17 Plaintiff's first cause of action, which alleges that Ligand violated ERISA by distributing 18 his 401(k) funds prematurely; Plaintiff's fourth cause of action, which alleges that Ligand 19 violated ERISA by failing to provide him with its written procedures for determining the 20 qualified status of the domestic relations order; and Plaintiff's twelfth cause of action, 21 which alleges that Ligand retaliated against him for fi


CourtListener opinion 10090002

CourtListener opinion 10090002 Extracted reporter citation: 73 F.3d 1057. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10090002 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


CourtListener opinion 10090002


CourtListener opinion 10090002

QDRO: Defendant with the divorce decree and other documentation to support her claim. Nonetheless, Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim based on its determination that the separation agreement did not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). In its letter denying the claim, Defendant stated that the separation agreement "does not meet QDRO requirements because it does not specify an amount of insurance to carry and it does not specify the name of the benefit plan." (ECF No. 125-4, Adverse Benefit Determination at 1.) Plaintiff brought an action in state court, which Defendant removed to


CourtListener opinion 10090002

ERISA: dant that the divorce decree is not a QDRO because it fails to identify each plan to which it applies. Plaintiff objects to that determination. The Court reviews the matter de novo. III. ANALYSIS Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), federal law preempts nearly all state law claims relating to employee benefit plans. Carland v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 1991). However, a limited exception applies to divorce decrees issued by state courts that meet the QDRO requirements. Id. at 1119. This exception to federal preemption "protect[s] spouses and dependents


CourtListener opinion 10090002

alternate payee: e plan's benefits." Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 698, 702 (6th Cir. 2017). To qualify as a QDRO, an order must clearly specify (i) the name and last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C).


CourtListener opinion 10090002

domestic relations order: pouse) as beneficiary . . . ." (ECF No. 128-1 at 3.) Had Plaintiff and Mr. Steele checked the corresponding box and used this part of the form agreement, perhaps ascertaining their intent would be a less formidable challenge. But in any event, "[w]hether a domestic relations order qualifies as a QDRO depends on the language of the order itself; the subjective intentions of the parties are not controlling." Hawkins, 86 F.3d at 989-90. The QDRO requirements are not optional, see id. at 992, and the Court finds that the language of the separation agreement fails to "clearly specify" two of the statutory requirements. First, the se


CourtListener opinion 10095241

CourtListener opinion 10095241 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10095241 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10095241

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.


CourtListener opinion 10095241

QDRO: o appealed the denial with the assistance of an attorney. Id. at ¶ 30. She submitted additional documents with her appeal that purported to show that she lived with Peñaloza for more than one year prior to May 1, 2014, id. at ¶ 33, but she did not submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, id. at ¶ 34. On April 13, 2016, the Appeals Committee considered the appeal and acted on behalf of the Trustees to deny it because Astudillo did not meet the requirements of a surviving spouse under Section 8.03 of Article VIII of the Plan. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32, 35. The Fund's Board of Trustees ratified this decision. Id. at ¶ 36. Astudillo was notified of


CourtListener opinion 10095241

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MERY ANN ASTUDILLO, No. 3:18-cv-394 (MPS) Plaintiff, v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION INDUSTRY PENSION FUND Defendant. RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mery Ann Astudillo ("Astudillo") brought this civil action pro se against United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Industry Pension Fund (the "Fund") for wrongfully denying her payment of her deceased husband's pension in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Sec


CourtListener opinion 10095241

ERISA: s civil action pro se against United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Industry Pension Fund (the "Fund") for wrongfully denying her payment of her deceased husband's pension in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Fund filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. FACTS The following facts are taken from UFCW's Local Rule 56(a) statement and supporting exhibits.1 1 Local Rule 56(a)2 requires the party opposing summary judgment to submit a Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement which indicates


CourtListener opinion 10095241

alternate payee: spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant" and "is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). A qualified domestic relations order means a domestic relations order that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). Astudillo did not submit a qualified domestic relations order. ECF No. 44-3 at ¶ 34. In sum, the undisputed facts show that Astudillo and Peñaloza were not married for the f


CourtListener opinion 10111460

CourtListener opinion 10111460 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10111460 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10111460


CourtListener opinion 10111460

QDRO: n's interest in Adam Anderson's death benefit under the MS Plan. (Id. at 21–22). On or about October 26, 2021, after Eva and Adam Anderson's deaths, the Family Court for the Divorce Action entered an order entitled "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" ("QDRO") with respect to Michelle Anderson's share of Adam Anderson's interest in the Profit-Sharing Plan. (Id. at 37). The purported QDRO directed Plaintiff Ben Hill Griffin to divide Adam Anderson's interest in the Profit-Sharing Plan into two separate accounts, effective December 31, 2011: one account to be allocated and assigned to Defendant Michelle An


CourtListener opinion 10111460

retirement benefits: dings of Fact This ERISA case arises out of the tragic deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson on July 19, 2021. Adam W. Anderson's employer, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., seeks a declaratory judgment as to the distribution of Adam Anderson's deferred compensation and retirement plans. A. The Parties Adam W. Anderson ("Adam Anderson") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 20). Until his passing, Adam Anderson was an employee with Plaintiff Ben Hill Griffin, Inc. (Doc. # 47-8). Eva W. Anderson ("Eva Anderson") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 7–8)


CourtListener opinion 10111460

pension: ants." As mentioned above, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., the Plaintiff in this case, was the employer of Adam Anderson until his death on June 19, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 10). Ben Hill Griffin, Inc. is the administrator of two of Adam Anderson's ERISA covered employee pension benefit plans. (Id. at ¶ 3). B. The Deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson Adam and Eva Anderson were found dead at their residence in Frostproof, FL, on the morning of June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 7). No one else was present with the couple at the time of their deaths. (Id.). The manner of Eva Anderson's death was determined to be a homicide, caused by t


CourtListener opinion 10111460

ERISA: nd Defendants A.W.A., Adam "AJ" Anderson, Cierra Michelle Anderson, Michelle R. Anderson, Candice Nicole Luke, and Sheenia Dannett Nealey replied on June 16, 2022. (Doc. # 80). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. I. Findings of Fact This ERISA case arises out of the tragic deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson on July 19, 2021. Adam W. Anderson's employer, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., seeks a declaratory judgment as to the distribution of Adam Anderson's deferred compensation and retirement plans. A. The Parties Adam W. Anderson ("Adam Anderson") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19,


CourtListener opinion 10125348

CourtListener opinion 10125348 Extracted case name: TES v. EMILY REEVES PRESSLEY. Extracted reporter citation: 377 F.3d 1173. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10125348 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


CourtListener opinion 10125348


CourtListener opinion 10125348

QDRO: an action to be preempted by ERISA, and to give rise to federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must fall "within the scope" of ERISA § 502(a)(1)(b)). Lastly, the Court noted that Plaintiffs argue the underlying divorce decree qualifies as a "qualified domestic relations order" ("QDRO"), which would, according to Plaintiffs, "exempt the plan from Federal preemption." [Doc. 19-1, p. 4]; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). The Court also explained to the parties that if the Court did have jurisdiction over this case, ERISA and federal common law—not state law—would govern the dispute. Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cros


CourtListener opinion 10125348

ERISA: On August 26, 2022, then-Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company1 removed the case to this Court. In the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1], Hartford cited its basis for removal as § 502(a) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Specifically, Hartford argued that Plaintiffs' claims "seek relief that is available under § 502(a) of ERISA." [Doc. 1, p. 3 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B))]. Hartford argued that because Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by ERISA, this Court could exercise federal question jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C § 1132(e)(1) and 28


CourtListener opinion 10125348

alternate payee: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C) (emphasis added). Here, the Decree does not clearly specify the plan to which the order applies. Instead, the Decree required Dale Pres


CourtListener opinion 10125348

domestic relations order: to be preempted by ERISA, and to give rise to federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must fall "within the scope" of ERISA § 502(a)(1)(b)). Lastly, the Court noted that Plaintiffs argue the underlying divorce decree qualifies as a "qualified domestic relations order" ("QDRO"), which would, according to Plaintiffs, "exempt the plan from Federal preemption." [Doc. 19-1, p. 4]; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). The Court also explained to the parties that if the Court did have jurisdiction over this case, ERISA and federal common law—not state law—would govern the dispute. Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cros


CourtListener opinion 10126607

CourtListener opinion 10126607 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10126607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10126607


CourtListener opinion 10126607

retirement benefits: 16, Jimmy signed his Last Will and Testament naming Billy as his sole heir and executor of his estate. (Id.) On July 26, 2016, Jimmy entered into a Prenuptial Agreement with Beulah Jean James ("Beulah"), whereby Beulah waived all rights to any 401(k) and retirement benefits held by Jimmy and consented to Jimmy appointing another beneficiary to receive those benefits. (Id. ¶ 12.) In the Prenuptial Agreement, Jimmy and Beulah specifically agreed that neither would "claim, demand, assert any right to, take or receive any part of the property of the other as described in Schedules 1 and 2." (Id. ¶ 13.) Schedule 1 specificall


CourtListener opinion 10126607

pension: e reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff Billy Moore ("Plaintiff" or "Billy") is the brother of Jimmy L. Moore ("Jimmy"), who was an employee of NCR Corporation ("NCR") and a participant in the 401(k) Plan and Pension Plan (collectively referred to herein as the "Plans"). (First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 24] ¶ 1.) The "Named Fiduciary" for both Plans is the Plan Administration Committee. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Plan Administrator for both Plans is also the Plan Administration Committee. (Compl., Ex. 1 at § 11.3, Ex. 2 at § 8.3.) NCR is the Plan Sponsor. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Fid


CourtListener opinion 10126607

ERISA: ppeal was denied. (Id. ¶ 32.) By letter dated June 6, 2018, Billy submitted additional arguments to NCR as to why he believed the disbursement was imprudent and violated fiduciary pronouncements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and requested relief for the same. (Id.) On August 9, 2018, NCR's counsel informed Billy's counsel that no relief would be provided. (Id.) On July 27, 2020, Billy submitted a letter to Fidelity notifying Fidelity of his claims against it for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking relief for the same. (Id. ¶ 33.) On September 14, 2020, F


CourtListener opinion 10126607

401(k): No. 15]. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff Billy Moore ("Plaintiff" or "Billy") is the brother of Jimmy L. Moore ("Jimmy"), who was an employee of NCR Corporation ("NCR") and a participant in the 401(k) Plan and Pension Plan (collectively referred to herein as the "Plans"). (First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 24] ¶ 1.) The "Named Fiduciary" for both Plans is the Plan Administration Committee. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Plan Administrator for both Plans is also the Plan Administration Committee. (Compl., Ex. 1 at § 11.3, Ex. 2 at § 8.3.) NCR is the Plan Sponsor. (First Am.


CourtListener opinion 10139374

CourtListener opinion 10139374 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Black. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 19-3. Trout. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10139374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10139374

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.


CourtListener opinion 10139374

QDRO: Id. ¶ 15. The motion recited that "[t]he Plan Administrator of Wertz's life insurance policy may be governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and if so, there would be a question as to whether the December 16, 2014 order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (QDRO) under ERISA, and QDRO status is necessary for Prudential to comply with the December 16, 2014 order." Id. The motion further stated that "in order to effectuate the interest of the December 16, 2014 order, the order must be clarified nunc pro tunc to provide that it is a QDRO as defined under ERISA." Id. Trout objected that the state trial cour


CourtListener opinion 10139374

pension: n uncomplicated rule: "simple administration, avoid[ing] double liability, and ensur[ing] that beneficiaries get what's coming quickly, without the folderol essential under less- certain rules." Id. at 301 (quoting Fox Valley & Vicinity Constr. Workers Pension Fund v. Brown, 897 F.2d 275, 283 (7th Cir. 1990)). Thus, if ERISA controls distribution of the proceeds at issue here and no exception applies, their distribution "stands and falls" with the plan documents, which would provide clearly for distribution to the named beneficiaries. Id. The parties apparently agree that the group plan at issue is covered b


CourtListener opinion 10139374

ERISA: filed in the divorce proceedings a motion to clarify nunc pro tunc the December 2014 order. Id. ¶ 15. The motion recited that "[t]he Plan Administrator of Wertz's life insurance policy may be governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and if so, there would be a question as to whether the December 16, 2014 order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (QDRO) under ERISA, and QDRO status is necessary for Prudential to comply with the December 16, 2014 order." Id. The motion further stated that "in order to effectuate the interest of the December 16, 2014 order, the order must be c


CourtListener opinion 10139374

alternate payee: ned in section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and section 206(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), so as to provide certain Plan benefits, as hereinafter specified, to an "Alternate Payee" (within the meaning of section 414(p)(8) of the Code and section 206(d)(3)(K) of ERISA). This Order shall be administered and interpreted in conformity with the provisions thereof which shall preempt any provisions of state law inconsistent therewith. No amendment of this Order shall require the Plan to provide any type or form of benefit, or any


CourtListener opinion 10141410

CourtListener opinion 10141410 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Murphy. Extracted reporter citation: 130 F.3d 1245. Docket: 58. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10141410 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10141410


CourtListener opinion 10141410

QDRO: details of the case. II. Uncontested Facts Roger Gossett and Cindy K. Gossett were divorced on or about November 30, 2006, in Harris County, Texas. Roger Gossett's Statement of Facts ("RGSOF") ¶ 9. As part of the divorce settlement, the two executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") on July 3, 2007, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B, ECF No. 58, which gave each of them a 50% interest in the vested accrued Fund benefits allocable to Mr. Gossett by virtue of his participation in the Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Plan. RGSOF ¶ 11. Ms. Gossett's divorce attorney sent a certified copy of the QDRO to the Fund in a letter dated March


CourtListener opinion 10141410

retirement benefits: ms of the agreement after she approached him asking for a loan in 2011. In the absence of "fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, where the parties have entered into a property settlement agreement wherein each has waived any and all interests in and to the retirement plan(s) of the other party, the parties are bound to the terms of their agreement." In re Marriage of McLauchlan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102114, ¶ 29, 966 N.E.2d 1151, 1160. What emerges from the evidence in this case is that Ms. Gossett needed money in 2011. 7 It bears noting that Ms. Gossett never explains how it is that she knew in 2017 that the pension be


CourtListener opinion 10141410

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ) CHICAGO PAINTERS AND ) DECORATORS PENSION FUND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 17 C 02658 ) ROGER GOSSETT and ) Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. CINDY K. GOSSETT, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this interpleader action, the Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Fund seeks a declaratory judgment as to whom to pay pension benefits earned by defendant/cross-plaintiff R


CourtListener opinion 10141410

alternate payee: d acknowledged that "one hundred (100%) percent of said benefits shall be the sole and separate 3 The unenforceable provisions included a lump-sum payment for differences due to adjustment in benefits, an early retirement subsidy, and a beneficiary of the Alternate Payee, none of which are relevant to this action. See First Am. Compl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 23. property of Roger Gossett." RGSOF ¶ 20; Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F at 2, ECF No. 58. Ms. Gossett "further agree[d] that she [would] sign any and all documents when submitted to her which will effectively terminate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order presently on file with th


CourtListener opinion 10148838

CourtListener opinion 10148838 Extracted reporter citation: 714 F.3d 1017. Docket: of participants. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10148838 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10148838


CourtListener opinion 10148838

QDRO: r plans Ad Hoc RKA services, which have separate, additional fees based on participants' conduct and usage of those services. Ad Hoc RKA services include loan processing, brokerage services and account maintenance, distribution services, and processing of qualified domestic relations orders. Recordkeepers mainly earn their fees from providing Bundled RKA services, not Ad Hoc RKA services. Recordkeepers may also perform certain RKA services on behalf of investment managers. In exchange, recordkeepers may collect a portion of the total expense ratio fee for the specific investment in a practice called revenue sharing or indirect compensatio


CourtListener opinion 10148838

retirement benefits: hildren's Medical Center Of Dallas Employee Savings 9,356 $349,335,673 $337,416 $36 Fidelity Plan 403(B) Ralph Lauren Corporation 9,389 $552,586,935 $290,066 $31 T. Rowe 401(K) Plan Price Vibra Healthcare 9,750 $107,652,510 $277,532 $28 Great-West Retirement Plan Republic National 9,922 $671,989,837 $324,171 $33 Great-West 401(K) Plan S Ca Permanente Medical Group Tax Savings 10,770 $773,795,904 $333,038 $31 Vanguard Retirement Plan Employee Savings Plan 12,152 $933,346,984 $827,957 $68 Principal Average Fee Viacom 401(K) Plan 12,196 $1,249,874,734 $376,314 $31 Great-West Sutter Health Retirement 1


CourtListener opinion 10148838

pension: er 25, 2019, Reynolds' successor, Pactiv, became the Plan sponsor. BACKGROUND2 Pactiv provides household products, including preparation, cooking, cleanup, and storage solutions. Pactiv sponsors and provides employees with a § 401(k) defined contribution pension plan, Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. Employee Savings Plan (the "Plan"). Pactiv matched employees' contributions to the Plan. Pactiv's contributions to the payment of Plan costs are guaranteed but pension benefits are not. Instead, the market performance of participants' contributions less expenses determines the value of participants' investments. Pac


CourtListener opinion 10148838

ERISA: a former participant in the Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. Employee Savings Plan (the "Plan") that Defendant Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. ("Pactiv") sponsors,1 filed this purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., against Pactiv and its Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"). In his amended complaint, Mazza complains that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by causing Plan participants to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative ("RKA") fees and that they failed to adequately monitor other Plan fiduciarie


CourtListener opinion 10158142

CourtListener opinion 10158142 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 729. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10158142 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10158142


CourtListener opinion 10158142

QDRO: ication of her beneficiary status. Id. Ex. 8A. On September 14, 2004, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff by letter that she was not entitled to benefits. Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 9A. In the letter, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff allege


CourtListener opinion 10158142

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION JIMELLA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 1:18-CV-284-TLS CENTRAL STATES PENSION FUND, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's, Jimella Harris, Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2), (b) and (e) [ECF No. 36] and Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b)(6) [ECF No. 37]. In these motions, the Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court


CourtListener opinion 10158142

ERISA: tiff by letter that she was not entitled to benefits. Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 9A. In the letter, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that she endured a back-and-forth with the Defendant regarding a QDRO. Id


CourtListener opinion 10158142

alternate payee: ated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that she endured a back-and-forth with the Defendant regarding a QDRO. Id. ¶ 9. The Plaintiff submitted a May 2008 order from the state court that the Defendant recognized as a "domesti


CourtListener opinion 10160562

CourtListener opinion 10160562 Extracted reporter citation: 103 F.3d 584. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10160562 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit 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.


CourtListener opinion 10160562

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.


CourtListener opinion 10160562

QDRO: ousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specificall