Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Sussex County Federal Credit Union

United States District Court, Third Circuit

September 16, 2013

PAULA M. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
SUSSEX COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant.

Richard R. Wier, Jr., Esq., Shannon Lamer Brainard, Esq., MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Wilmington, DE. Attorneys for Plaintiff Paula M. Campbell.

Gaston P. Loomis, Esq., ECKERT SEAMENS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Wilmington, DE; F. Joseph Nealon, Esq., Michael A. Graziano, Esq., ECKERT SEAMENS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Washington, DC. Attorneys for Defendant Sussex County Federal Credit Union.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANDREWS, USJ DISTRICT JUDGE:

Plaintiff Paula M. Campbell filed the instant action on August 24, 2010, alleging that Sussex County Federal Credit Union improperly denied her benefits under the Diamond State Federal Credit Union Retirement Benefits Plan. (D.I. 1, 31). The Court dismissed counts 2, 3, and 4 of the first amended complaint with prejudice on March 7, 2012. (D.I. 39). The sole remaining count alleges that Sussex's failure to provide free lifetime health insurance to Ms. Campbell and her husband violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). (D.I. 31 at ^f| 52-55). Discovery closed on June 1, 2013, (D.I. 81), and a non-jury trial was scheduled to begin on September 16, 2013.

Both parties have moved for summary judgment. (D.I. 100, 103). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Sussex's motion and deny Ms. Campbell's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Ms. Campbell was a longtime employee of Diamond State Federal Credit Union (D.I. 102-1 at 3-4). Sometime in 2005, Ms. Campbell, who was then President of Diamond State (D.I. 106-3 at 3), presented a "retirement" plan (the "Campbell Plan" or "Plan") to Diamond State's board of directors. (D.I. 102-1 at 11-13). The Plan was drafted by an attorney and states that its purpose "is to reward [Ms. Campbell] for her loyal and continuous service to the Company by providing supplemental retirement benefits." (D.I. 102-3 at 2). The Plan further provides that Diamond State will continue to provide Ms. Campbell and her husband with health insurance for the remainder of her life. (Id. at 2-3). The Plan was signed by the chairwoman of the board of directors of Diamond State and Ms. Campbell on January 24, 2006. (Id. at 5).

In the fall of 2007, Ms. Campbell resigned from Diamond State and accepted employment with Sussex. (D.I. 102-1 at 20). On March 31, 2009, Diamond State and Sussex merged. (D.I. 102-9). Sussex terminated Ms. Campbell's employment on October 7, 2009. (D.I. 102-13). Following her termination, Ms. Campbell sought to enforce Sussex's purported obligation to honor the Campbell Plan. When she was unsuccessful, Ms. Campbell filed this lawsuit. Ms. Campbell claims the cash value of the Campbell Plan is $535, 578. (D.I. 106-15 at

4)-[1]

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A "material fact" is one that "could affect the outcome" of the proceeding. See Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181 (3d Cir. 2011). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. 10 (1986). The court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

If the moving party is able to demonstrate an absence of disputed material facts, the nonmoving party then "must come forward with 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. '"Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 249 (1986); see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. The mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party, however, will not be sufficient for denial of a motion for summary judgment. Anderson, All U.S. at 249. Rather, the nonmoving party must present enough evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find for it on that issue. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 322

(1986).

III. DISCUSSION


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.