Timothy A Murphy v. Montebello Teachers Association
Filing
47
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 11/13/2014. (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
NO JS-6
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY A. MURPHY,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTEBELLO TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, a California
corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-07951 DDP (AGRx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[DKT. NO. 19]
17
18
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary
19
judgment (the “Motion”). (Docket No. 19.) For the reasons stated in
20
this order, the Motion is GRANTED.
21
I. Background1
22
Plaintiff Timothy A. Murphy (“Plaintiff”) was an employee of
23
the Montebello Unified School District for 36 years, beginning in
24
1977. (Docket No. 32, ¶ 1.) In 1983, Plaintiff became the Athletic
25
Director at Montebello High School, at which time he stopped paying
26
dues to Defendant Montebello Teachers Association (“MTA” or
27
1
28
The Court recites the facts here largely as Plaintiff
describes them, since the Court must construe the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party on a motion for summary
judgment.
1
“Defendant”), presumably because he was no longer a teacher. (Id.)
2
However, in December 2009, MTA began deducting $98.302 for union
3
dues from Plaintiff’s paychecks. (Id. ¶ 2.) When Plaintiff called
4
MTA to ask why the money was now being deducted, he was told that
5
after an audit MTA had determined that Plaintiff should be a dues
6
paying member of MTA. (Id.)
7
In October 2010, Plaintiff requested information as to what it
8
would cost for him to join the medical trust (the “Plan”), an
9
optional benefit for MTA members. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff received a
10
response in November 2010, but he never followed up to join the
11
Plan because he believed the costs to be prohibitive. (Id.; Docket
12
No. 21, Exh. 1.) However, in April 2011, MTA began deducting
13
$200.50 from Plaintiff’s paychecks. (Docket No. 32, ¶ 4 & Exhs.)
14
This larger amount represents both dues and a contribution to the
15
Plan. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff claims he never authorized this
16
additional deduction, nor signed up to participate in the voluntary
17
Plan. (Id.)
18
Plaintiff again contacted MTA and told them that he did not
19
wish to participate in the Plan unless they could offer him more
20
favorable terms. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff states that he was offered a
21
better plan by MTA employee Alonso Ibanez, which required Plaintiff
22
to pay $1,500 in back payments dating to June 2009, pay monthly
23
$100 contributions until he retired, and then make additional
24
monthly contributions until May 2021, with the amount varying
25
depending on the age at which he retired. (Id. ¶ 7 & Exhs.) After
26
accepting this alleged offer, Plaintiff paid the $1,500 back
27
2
28
It appears that this amount may have been raised to $100.50
sometime between 2009 and 2011.
2
1
payment and the monthly contributions until his retirement in June
2
2013. (Docket No. 21, Exh. 4.) Despite his participation, Plaintiff
3
alleges that at no time was he provided with a written acceptance
4
into the Plan. (Docket No. 32, ¶ 9.)
5
Plaintiff retired from the Montebello Unified School District
6
effective July 1, 2013. (Docket No. 19-2, ¶ 10.) At that time,
7
Plaintiff did not have enough contributions to be eligible for
8
benefits under the Plan. (Id. ¶ 11.) Around the time of his
9
retirement, Plaintiff requested a “refund of the $1,500 that was
10
used to buy in to the medical trust along with all additional
11
monthly payments to the trust that [he] ha[d] made.” (Id. ¶ 12;
12
Docket No. 21, Exh. 3.) The request was considered by the trustees
13
of the Plan, who notified Plaintiff on June 6, 2013 that “at such
14
time as [Plaintiff] no longer [is] a member of the bargaining unit
15
represented by the Association, [Plaintiff] will be eligible to
16
receive a refund of contributions up to $1,500 from the
17
Association.” (Docket No. 21, Exh. 5.) MTA argues that Plaintiff
18
did not properly apply for this offered refund, nor appeal the
19
decision of the trustees not to refund more than $1,500, instead
20
filing this action in small claims court. (Docket No. 19-2, ¶ 14.)
21
Nevertheless, on October 11, 2013, MTA issued a discretionary
22
$1,500 refund to Plaintiff, who deposited the refund on January 8,
23
2014. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff continues to seek a refund of the
24
balance of the contributions he made to the Plan.
25
Plaintiff originally filed this action in small claims court.
26
(See Docket No. 1.) Defendant removed the action on the basis that
27
the action is covered by ERISA. (Id.) Defendant now seeks summary
28
judgment. (Docket No. 20.)
3
1
2
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings,
3
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
4
together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
5
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
6
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party
7
seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the
8
court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions
9
of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the
10
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.
11
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All reasonable inferences from
12
the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See
13
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). If the
14
moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is
15
entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is
16
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”
17
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
18
Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to
19
the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth
20
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
21
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is warranted if a party
22
“fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
23
an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party
24
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
25
A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable
26
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” and material
27
facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under
28
the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. There is no genuine
4
1
issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
2
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.”
3
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
4
587 (1986).
5
It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a
6
genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278
7
(9th Cir. 1996). Counsel has an obligation to lay out their support
8
clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031
9
(9th Cir. 2001). The court “need not examine the entire file for
10
evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence
11
is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate references
12
so that it could conveniently be found.” Id.
13
III. Discussion
14
Taking all of Plaintiff’s contentions and evidence in the
15
light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff
16
has not demonstrated an entitlement to the return of any funds
17
beyond the $1,500 he has already received. Plaintiff alleges that
18
he was offered a particular “deal” whereby he would make a back
19
payment of $1,500 to purchase months of contributions into the
20
Plan, pay $100 per month for the remainder of his employment prior
21
to retirement, and then continue to make monthly contributions to
22
the Plan until May 2021, with the monthly amount varying depending
23
on the age at which he retired. MTA disputes that any such
24
arrangement was ever made and argues that Plaintiff cannot submit
25
extrinsic evidence to contradict the terms of the written ERISA
26
Plan document. Assuming for purposes of this discussion that all of
27
Plaintiff’s allegations are true, regardless of whether there is
28
sufficient admissible supporting evidence to prove that this is
5
1
what occurred, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to
2
summary judgment.
3
Plaintiff is not pursuing recovery of benefits under the Plan,
4
nor is he attempting to continue paying contributions following his
5
retirement. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Plaintiff paid some
6
money into the Plan under some (disputed) terms. Even assuming
7
Plaintiff obtained the claimed “special deal” by way of an oral
8
agreement, he is not entitled to the remedy of a refund of all
9
monies contributed. Instead, he would be entitled to the benefit of
10
his purported bargain - the opportunity to pay into the medical
11
trust under the terms of his agreement with MTA until 2021 in order
12
to obtain vested benefits. In the alternative, the Plan provides
13
that “[a] former bargaining unit member who leaves the bargaining
14
unit may request a reimbursement of contributions up to a maximum
15
of $1,500 from the Association.” Though MTA contends that Plaintiff
16
did not submit a proper formal request for this refund, MTA has now
17
construed Plaintiff’s actions as requesting this maximum refund and
18
issued him the refund. Allowing Plaintiff to recover any further
19
contributions is contrary to the purpose of this type of trust
20
arrangement, which relies on the fact that some individuals will
21
contribute money but never end up using it, either because they do
22
not need the benefits offered or because they do not contribute
23
enough for the benefits to vest. See Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas
24
Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Serv., Inc., 870 F.2d 1148, 1151-56
25
(7th Cir. 1989). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not
26
entitled to recover his contributions beyond the $1,500 he has
27
already received.
28
///
6
1
2
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: November 12, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?