Opinion
CASE NO. 1:06CV767.
May 14, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Complaint in Interpleader and the Motion of Defendant Daisy Rogers for Summary Judgment (ECF DKT #15). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and Daisy L. Rogers is determined to be the surviving spouse of decedent, Thomas A. Rogers, and the proper beneficiary of his pension benefits.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The UAW Retirement Plan is an employee pension benefit retirement plan, as defined under Section 3(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The Plan provides retirement benefits to certain hourly employees of Ford Motor Company and their surviving spouses. Prior to his retirement, effective June 30, 1991, Thomas A. Rogers was an hourly employee of Ford and a Plan participant. Mr. Rogers died on January 14, 2005. Upon his retirement, Mr. Rogers identified Adrienne Rogers as his surviving spouse. As of his death, Plan records indicated Adrienne Rogers was his surviving spouse. However, on March 3, 2005, Daisy Rogers made a claim to receive Mr. Rogers' surviving spouse benefits, alleging when he died, she and Mr. Rogers were still married. The Plan has received satisfactory proof of Mr. Rogers' death, and is willing to pay benefits to his surviving spouse as of his retirement date. However, the Plan has not received determinative evidence demonstrating that either Adrienne Rogers or Daisy Rogers is the surviving spouse, and therefore, the proper beneficiary. The conflicting claims expose the Plan to liability should the Plan make an incorrect beneficiary determination. The Plan asserts no beneficial or legal interest in the amount of surviving spouse benefits it holds. Therefore, this interpleader action was filed as the only means for the Plan to disburse benefit payments without facing future liability. The docket reflects Plaintiff made every effort to serve Defendant Adrienne V. Rogers, eventually completing service by ordinary mail. (ECF DKT #12). Said Defendant did not move or plead to the Complaint. Moreover, when Defendant Daisy L. Rogers filed her Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Adrienne V. Rogers did not respond; and, further, did not appear for a duly-noticed deposition. (ECF DKT # 14).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review Motion for Summary Judgment
A summary judgment should be granted only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The burden is on the moving party to conclusively show no genuine issue of material fact exists, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F. 3d 1339, 1347 (6th Cir. 1994); and the court must view the facts and all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Once the movant presents evidence to meet its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on its pleadings, but must come forward with some significant probative evidence to support its claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Lansing Dairy, 39 F. 3d at 1347; Lee v. Ritter, No. 1:02-CV-282, 2005 WL 3369616, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2005). This Court does not have the responsibility to search the record sua sponte for genuine issues of material fact. Betkerur v. Aultman Hospital Ass'n., 78 F. 3d 1079, 1087 (6th Cir. 1996); Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F. 2d 399, 404-06 (6th Cir. 1992). If the nonmoving party fails to make the necessary showing on an element upon which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Local Rule 7.1(g) authorizes this Court to "rule on unopposed motions without hearing at any time after the time for filing an opposition has expired." The district court's power to grant dispositive motions because they are unopposed is firmly settled. Demsey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2005 WL 1917934, *2 (N.D. Ohio 2005); Peacock v. Bayview Loan Serv., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10276, *9-10 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (both citing to Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F. 3d 483, 492 (6th Cir. 2000)). A party's continuing "failure to respond" may be deemed a "confession" to the motion's merit. Cacevic, id.
The uncontroverted evidence, submitted with the Motion of Defendant Daisy L. Rogers for Summary Judgment, includes the following: (1) The Affidavit of Daisy L. Rogers setting forth the date and place of her marriage to decedent Thomas A. Rogers and stating she has never been divorced from him; (2) The Marriage Certificate of Daisy and Thomas Rogers dated July 19, 1953; and (3) The Certification of the Superior Court of New Jersey, dated July 27, 2005, indicating no record of a divorce between Thomas and Daisy Rogers from 1953 through 2005.
The Affidavit of Daisy L. Rogers, as to her status as the surviving spouse of Thomas A. Rogers, is undisputed. The Marriage Certificate and the Certification of the search of New Jersey Superior Court records are self-authenticating documents, of which this Court may take judicial notice. See, Fed.R.Evid. 902.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant Daisy L. Rogers has satisfied her burden of demonstrating there is no genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff Ford Motor Company — UAW Retirement Plan has no interest in the surviving spouse benefits except as a stakeholder. Defendant Adrienne V. Rogers has not opposed the dispositive motion, and has not provided probative evidence to counter the claims of Defendant Daisy L. Rogers. Therefore, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and Local R. 7.1(g), and upon consideration of the evidence submitted, this Court grants summary judgment and determines Defendant Daisy L. Rogers is the surviving spouse of decedent Thomas A. Rogers and is the true and proper beneficiary of the Plaintiff Ford Motor Company — UAW Retirement Plan's surviving spouse benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.