Moeller v. Bertrang

11 Citing cases

  1. Colarusso v. Transcapital Fiscal Systems, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 99-2394(JWB) (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that no civil penalties may be imposed under section 1024(b) based on an oral request for plan information

    The court in Donovan specifically held that ERISA does not require a formal written plan, but rather, covers any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained by an employer who is engaged in any activity or industry affecting commerce. Id. For example, in Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291 (D.S.D. 1992), the South Dakota District Court found that an oral promise by an employer to pay employees with five years of service $1,000.00 for each year worked until their retirement was an ERISA-covered pension plan. The court found that a reasonable person could ascertain the intended benefits and beneficiaries, the source of financing, and plan procedures.

  2. Musmeci v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets

    159 F. Supp. 2d 329 (E.D. La. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that an unfunded plan "is merely a nominal defendant with the true party in interest being the employer"

    An employer is under no legal obligation to create an employee pension plan — the decision to create one is entirely voluntary — but once a plan is established, ERISA entitles an employee to any vested benefits that arise under the plan. See Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291, 293 (D.S.D. 1992) (citing Williams, 927 F.2d at 1543). An employer's promise to pay pension benefits is enforceable under ERISA when the plan pursuant to which the benefits are paid falls within the scope of ERISA's coverage provisions.

  3. Belanger v. Wyman-Gordon Company

    71 F.3d 451 (1st Cir. 1995)   Cited 96 times
    Holding ERISA's substantive provisions are designed "to safeguard the financial integrity of employee benefit funds, to permit employee monitoring of earmarked assets, and to ensure that employers' promises are kept."

    To be sure, in some circumstances a parade of early retirement offers might constitute a plan under ERISA — where, for example, employees rely on the promise of future offers. Cf. Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291, 294-95 (D.S.D. 1992) (emphasizing the importance of employee reliance on employer promises of future benefits). But this record reveals no such concatenation of circumstances.

  4. Diak v. Dwyer, Costello & Knox, P.C.

    33 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel production of the Defendant's entire tax returns, where the district court inspected the full returns in camera and concluded that the redacted information was immaterial

    In all of the authorities Diak cites, the amount of benefits due or the method of calculating benefits was clear on the face of the record — the only question was whether the plan had been adopted. Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co., 747 F. Supp. 1421 (M.D.Ala. 1990) (board minutes establishing pension plan listed schedule of benefits commensurate with year of service); James v. National Business Systems, 924 F.2d at 719 (plaintiff had drafted proposed payment schedule); Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291 (D.S.D. 1992) (undisputed that all employees working five years would receive a lump sum at retirement at age 62 of $1000 for each year of service). In this case, DCK's conduct does not indicate that DCK had established a plan with ascertainable benefits.

  5. Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp.

    23 F.3d 855 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that employer's decisions in creating benefit plan are business decisions that do not give rise to ERISA procedures

    The informal plan must, however, actually be in existence; the mere decision to create an employee benefit plan is not actionable. James v. National Business Sys., Inc., 924 F.2d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 1991); Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291, 293 (D.S.D. 1992). An informal plan may exist independent of, and in addition to, a formal plan as long as the informal plan meets all of the elements outlined in Donovan.

  6. Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp.

    6 F.3d 1028 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    Dismissing breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligence claims on basis of ERISA preemption

    Id. at 1373. In addition, the informal plan must actually be in existence; the mere decision to create an employee benefit plan is not actionable. James v. National Business Sys., Inc., 924 F.2d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 1991); Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291, 293 (D.S.D. 1992). An informal plan may exist independent of, and in addition to, a formal plan as long as the informal plan meets all of the elements outlined in Donovan.

  7. Alberth v. S. Lakes Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

    Case No. 19-CV-62 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 6, 2020)

    The court reasoned, "it is difficult to divine a formula at work in this distribution of payments," contrasting this case with others in which "the amount of benefits due or the method of calculating benefits was clear on the face of the record—the only question was whether the plan had been adopted." Id. (citing James v. National Business Systems, 924 F.2d 718, 719 (7th Cir. 1991) (benefit amount ascertainable from draft proposed payment schedule); Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291 (D.S.D. 1992) (undisputed that all employees working five years would receive a lump sum at retirement at age 62 of $1,000 for each year of service); Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co., 747 F. Supp. 1421 (M.D. Ala. 1990) (benefit amount ascertainable from board meeting minutes that included schedule of benefits commensurate with years of service).) There are undoubtedly similarities between Diak and this case.

  8. Castagna v. Luceno

    No. 09-CV-9332 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011)   Cited 36 times
    Affirming dismissal of religious discrimination claim where EEOC complaint only alleged race and gender discrimination and did not “include any incidents that would have allowed ... [an] investigat[ion into] such allegations”

    The only cases to which Sarracco points in support of his ERISA claim support Defendants' position that Sarracco has failed to allege the existence of a plan. In Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291 (D.S.D. 1992), the court found that an oral promise by an employer to establish a retirement account for employees constituted an ERISA plan. Id. at 294.

  9. Stoffels ex rel. SBC Telephone Concession Plan v. SBC Communications, Inc.

    555 F. Supp. 2d 745 (W.D. Tex. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    The most persuasive evidence that intended benefits of the OOR Retiree Concession Plan are ascertainable is "defendant's payment to [plaintiff]." Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F.Supp. 291, 295 (D.S.D. 1992) (finding pension plan existed). In this case, for five years a third party administrator, Acordia, was consistently able "to determine the amount" that "concession-eligible persons were eligible to receive."

  10. In re Silicon Graphics, Inc.

    363 B.R. 690 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a plan is an ERISA-covered plan in part because it “provides that ... no distribution shall be made or commenced prior to the [p]articipant's termination of employment or death, or a [c]hange of [c]ontrol” even though there was an early withdrawal option

    Even non-traditional ERISA plans can result in ERISA pre-emption. See Moeller v. Bertrang, 801 F. Supp. 291, 298 (D.S.D. 1992). (action against former employer seeking to recover retirement benefits based solely on the employer's oral promise to his employees that such benefits would be payable deemed to be pre-empted by ERISA.)