Legassie v. Raytheon Co. Employee Benefits Admin. Comm

Full title: MARK LEGASSIE, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS…

Court: United States District Court, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 2, 2011

CASE NO.: CV 10-1850 ABC(JEMx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO.: CV 10-1850 ABC(JEMx).

June 2, 2011

BARGER WOLEN LLP, ROBERT K. RENNER, Attorneys for Defendant.

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT [Lodged Concurrently With: — Notice of Lodging]

AUDREY COLLINS, District Judge

Complaint Filed: March 15, 2010

JUDGMENT

After considering all of the documents previously submitted — including without limitation the Administrative Record (bearing bates-stamps LEG-PEN 00001 through LEG-PEN 00563), the additional pension-related documents (bearing bates-stamps LEGASSIE 0001 through LEGASSIE 0183), the parties' respective Opening and Responding Trial Briefs, and the parties' briefing on Defendant's Motion for Relief from Order — and after considering all other matters presented to the Court, and for good cause appearing, this Court finds that Judgment should be entered as a matter of law in favor of Defendant Raytheon Company Employee Benefits Administration Committee, Administrator of the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees (together with its successors, referred to as "Plan Administrator") for all of the reasons reflected in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated April 4, 2011 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by reference) and in the Minute Order dated May 11, 2011 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated by reference).

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. As confirmed by his trial briefing, Plaintiff Mark Legassie ("Legassie") has abandoned and/or waived any challenge to the Plan Administrator's determination that, as of April 1999 when he transferred divisions, he was no longer eligible to continue accruing service credit in the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees ("Plan");

2. The Plan Administrator committed no statutory violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., as amended. Contrary to Legassie's allegations, the Plan Administrator did not violate 29 U.S.C. Sections 1021(f)(1), 1024(b)(1), 1025(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or 1059(a)(1)(B) and (C);

3. Judgment shall be entered forthwith in favor of the Plan Administrator and against Legassie;

4. Legassie shall take nothing by way of his Complaint; and

5. Legassie and the Plan Administrator shall bear his/its own attorneys' fees and costs.