WELLER v. LINDE PENSION EXCESS PROGRAM
Filing
94
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/24/2019. (dam, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DESTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARK D. WELLER,
Civil Action No.: 16-4254 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
LINDE PENSION EXCESS PROGRAM. et
a!.,
Defendants.
LINARES, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Linde Pension Excess Program (“Program”) and Linde North America Inc. (“Linde”),
(ECF No. $1), and the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Mark D. Weller,
(ECF No. $2), both brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Plaintiff and
Defendants each filed a brief in opposition and a reply thereto. (ECF Nos. $7, 8$, 92, 93). The
Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.
For the reasons expressed below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to
the extent that it seeks judgment on Plaintiffs claim for violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 1001, etseq. (“ERISA”), but denies Defendants’ Motion to the
extent that it seeks judgment on Plaintiffs remaining claims, and further denies Plaintiffs Cross
Motion in its entirety.
I.
BACKGROUND1
A. The Excess Benefit Program
For approximately thirty years, Plaintiff was employed as an in-house counsel for
Defendant Linde and its predecessor companies. (Pl.’s SMF
¶J
1—3, 5). Defendant Linde offered
participation in a qualified pension plan (“the Linde Pension Plan”) as well as Defendant Program
for certain highly compensated employees.
(Pl.’s SMF
¶] 18—19.
23).
Defendant Program
specifically states that it “is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan” and “is intended to be a
plan maintained for a select group of management or highly compensated employees.” (ECF No.
82-18 (“Excess Benefit Plan”) at 2). Pursuant to the terms of Defendant Program, participation
was limited to those employees who: (1) participated in the Linde Pension Plan; and (2) earned an
annual salary above the IRS Section 401 (a)( 17) limitations. (Pl.’s SMF ¶ 20, 28—29). There were
no other requirements, as an employee did not need to achieve any specified performance criteria
or pre-detennined goal to participate in Defendant Program. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 30).
The excess benefit payments were calculated annually and were “equal to the amount of
Annual Service Credit and 3% Company Cash Contributions that an employee would have
received in [the Linde Pension Plan] on the employee’s covered earnings above the annual Section
401(a)(17) limits.” (Pl.’s SMF ¶] 20, 28; see also Excess Benefit Plan). Pursuant to this language,
a participant’s benefits under Defendant Program cannot be calculated without first determining
said participant’s annual covered earnings, which is reflected in a report generated by Defendant
Linde’s Human Resource Information System (“HRIS”). (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 43). The definition of
This background is taken from the parties’ statements of material facts, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. (ECF
No. 8 1-2, Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“Defs.’ SMF”): ECF No. 83. Plaintiffs Rule 56.1
Statement of Material facts (Pl.’s SMf”): ECF No. 87-2, Defendants Responsive and Supplemental Statement of
Material facts: ECF Nos. 88-1—88-2. Plaintiffs Responsive and Supplemental Statements of Material Facts; ECF
No. 93-1. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Material Facts). To the extent that
Defendants admit to any Material Facts as stated by Plaintiff, the Court will cite only to “P1’s SMF” and the relevant
paragraph.
7
covered earnings in Defendant Program is based on the definition of earnings in the Linde Pension
Plan, which defines same as:
the amount received by a Participant from an Employer as base
salary or wages, plus bonuses, or other regular remuneration. for
services as an Eligible Employee but does not include any other
remuneration paid to an Employee which his Employer, on a
uniform and nondiscriminatory basis applicable to all Employees in
similar circumstances, shall determine to be overtime pay, shift
differential, premium pay
or any other form of additional or
special compensation.
.
.
.
.
.
(ECF No. 82-16 at 4).
Defendant Program originally provided excess benefit payments to its participants at the
time they received their pension payments, i.e., when they left the company, but Defendant
Prograi-n was amended in or around 2005 so that participants received their excess benefit
payments the year after said amounts were earned, i.e., while the participants were still employed.
(Pl.’s SMF
¶ 20—21).
However, those employees who were participating in Defendant Program
prior to the 2005 amendment were permitted to receive their excess benefit payments at the same
time as their pension payments (“the Grandfathered Participants”). (Pl.’s SMF
¶
¶ 21;
Defs.’ SMF
17 n.4). Plaintiff started participating in Defendant Program on January 1, 2008, and received
his excess benefit payment the year after said payment was earned. (Pl.’s SMF
¶J 25, 27).
B. The Settlement Agreement
Though it is contested by Defendants. Plaintiff claims that, in June 2014, an employee of
Defendant Linde directed him to engage in conduct that would allegedly violate United States
antitrust laws. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 4—5;
ECF No. 87-2
¶ 4).
Plaintiff refused to do so and reported the
incident to Defendant Linde’s internal audit function.
5
(Pl.’s SMF
¶
5).
Shortly thereafter,
Defendant Linde allegedly informed Plaintiff that his position would be terminated.2 (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 5).
Plaintiff retained a lawyer and notified Defendant Linde that he intended to file a lawsuit for
violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 7—8).
Before a
lawsuit was filed, however, Plaintiff and Defendant Linde entered into mediation and, on June 23,
2015, executed a settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”). (Pl.’s SMF
¶J 9—11).
The Settlement Agreement specifically stated that its purpose was “solely to buy peace and
to resolve disputed claims and for no other purpose.” (ECF 82-12 at 1). Under the Settlement
Agreement, Defendant Linde would, among other things, provide Plaintiff with a one-time
payment of 1,0 15,000 (“the Settlement Payment”) and issue “an IRS fonri W-2 concerning” the
Settlement Payment.
(Id. at 4).
In exchange, Plaintiff promised that his employment with
Defendant Linde would end on August 31, 2015 and that he would not sue Defendant Linde in
relation to the abovernentioned dispute. (Id. at 1—3). Specifically, Plaintiff agreed to:
release and discharge [Defendant] Linde, and each of its parents,
related or affiliated companies, subsidiary companies, members,
directors, officers, shareholders, divisions, branches, agents,
employees, assigns, successors, attorneys, insurers, and any person
or entity now or previously acting, directly or indirectly, in the
interest of or on behalf of said entities in any capacity whatsoever
(“Released Parties”) from any and all causes of action, claims,
demands, costs, and expenses, or damages, whether or not known,
claimed, asserted, anticipated, or suspected by [Plaintiff], which he
now has, or which have been or cocild have been asserted or could
be asserted by [Plaintiff] or on [Plaintiffs] behalf arising out of any
acts, actions, conduct, occurrences, transactions, or omissions,
including without limitation the Dispute, [Plaintiffs] employment,
and/oi the end of his employment with the Released Parties, by the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
(Id. at2).
2
Defendants object to this description. Instead. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs position was being consolidated
with another position, and that it was Plaintiff who suggested “a parting of the ways.” (ECF No. 87-2 j 5). As will
be made clear herein, the reasoning behind the end of Plaintiffs employment is not material to the determination of
these motions.
4
Plaintiff also agreed under the Settlement Agreement to release numerous claims against
Defendant Linde “based upon any conduct, act. or omission, up to and including the Effective Date
of this Agreement.” (k!). The “Effective Date” of the Settlement Agreement was defined by said
agreement’s plain terms as seven days from the date it is executed by the parties. (Id. at 8).
Considering the Settlement Agreement was signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Linde on or around
June 24, 2015, (id. at 9), the “Effective Date” of the Settlement Agreement was approximately
July 1, 2015.
On August 31, 2015, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs employment with
Defendant Linde ended. (Pl.’s SMF
¶
48). On November 6, 2015, Defendant Linde provided
Plaintiff with: (1) the Settlement Payment, which was directly deposited to Plaintiffs personal
bank account; and (2) an earnings statement identifying the Settlement Payment as “Earnings” and
including the Settlement Payment in Plaintiffs “Gross Earnings.”
(Pl.’s SMF
¶J
12—14).
Defendant Linde’s internal remuneration statement also included the Settlement Payment in its
accounting of Plaintiffs 2015 “Gross Earnings.” (Pl.’s SMF
¶J
15). Additionally, the 2015 W-2
and Earnings Summary issued by Defendant Linde listed the Settlement Payment as “wages.”
(Pl.’s SMF
¶ 16; see ct/so
ECF No. 82-15).
C. Conduct Underlying this Action
Though the parties contest whether or not it was properly performed, the Settlement
Payment was excluded from the HRIS report of Plaintiffs annual earnings, which was used by
Defendant Program to calculate Plaintiffs 2015 excess benefit payment. (Pl.’s SMF
ECF No. 87-2
¶J
44—45).
¶ 44—46;
Because the Settlement Payment was not included in Defendant
Program’s calculation, Defendant Program provided Plaintiff with an excess benefit payment in
the amount ofSl 8,960.69. (P1.’s SMF
JJ 5 1—54).
5
Plaintiff claims that he would have received an
excess benefit payment of $13 1,145.42 from Defendant Program had the Settlement Payment been
included in the benefits calculation. (Pl.’s SMF
¶J 5 5—56).
In february 2016, upon discovering this supposed discrepancy, Plaintiff contacted
Defendants and requested that they “pay him the full amount of benefits due in accordance with
the tenns of the Program.” (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 57).
Though it is contested whether or not Defendants
reviewed the Settlement Agreement, it is uncontested that Defendants found that the Settlement
Payment was not “earnings” under Defendant Program and denied Plaintiffs request. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 58—59;
ECF No. 87-2
¶J 58—59).
Defendants told Plaintiff that he can appeal their finding “in
accordance with Article 12 of the Linde Pension Plan.” (Pl.’s SMF
¶
62). However, Plaintiff
points out that Article 12 of the Linde Pension Plan does not provide any kind of appeals process
such as the one stated by Defendants. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 63).
D. Procedural History
Accordingly, on July 13, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action to recover the remaining
amount of excess benefit payments had the Settlement Payment been included as earnings in
Defendant Program’s calculations, which Plaintiff claims would be equal to $112,184.73, in
addition to attorney fees and other costs under ERISA. (Pl.’s SMf ¶ 64; see also ECF No. 1; ECf
No. 12 (“FAC”)). Specifically, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint asserts the following causes of
action against Defendants: (1) failure to make benefit payments in violation of ERISA (“Count
One”); (2) breach of contract (“Count Two”); and (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (“Count Three”).3 (FAC
¶ 34—55).
Defendants now move for summary judgment and
Plaintiff cross-moves for same.
At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court found that the determination of whether or not ERISA applied to this case
should be left for the summary judgment stage, (ECF No. 27 at 10), an issue which the Court necessarily resolves
in its analysis herein.
6
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing alt reasonable inferences in the non
movant’s favor, there exists “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Ltherti Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “[T]he moving party must show that the non-moving party has failed to
establish one or more essential elements of its case on which the non-moving party has the burden
of proof at trial.” McC’abe v. Ernst & Yottng, LLP, 494 F.3d 418,424 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Cclotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322—23 (1986)).
The Court must consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Pa. Coat Ass ‘ii v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995). If a
reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party regarding material disputed
factual issues, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson. 477 U.S. at 249 (“[A]t
the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”).
III.
ANALYSIS
The determination of the parties’ motions turns on the answers to three questions: (1) did
Plaintiff disclaim his causes of action in this case by entering into the Settlement Agreement?; (2)
does Defendant Program qualify as an ERISA benefit program so that this case is governed by
ERISA?; and (3) regardless of whether Defendant Program qualifies as an ERISA benefit program
or a unilateral contract, does the Settlement Payment qualify as “earnings” under Defendant
Program? The Court addresses each of these questions in turn and concludes that, though this case
is not barred by the Settlement Agreement nor is it governed by ERISA, there is a material dispute
7
of fact as to whether or not the Settlement Payment qualifies as “earnings” under Defendant
Program.
A. The Settlement Agreement’s Disclaimer
Defendants first argue that Plaintiff waived his current causes of action by entering into the
Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 81-1 at 4—6). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff
agreed in part to “release and discharge” Defendant Linde from any claims, whether known or
suspected, “which [Plaintiff] now has, or which have been or could have been asserted or could be
asserted by [Plaintiff]
.
..
arising out of.
.
.
the Dispute, [Plaintiffs] employment, and/or the end
of his employment with [Defendant Linde], by the Effective Date of this Agreement.” (ECF 8212 at 2). Plaintiff further disclaimed several specific causes of action, including any cause of action
under ERISA, that occurred “prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement.” (Id.). The clear
meaning of this language is that Plaintiff disclaimed any causes of action that existed as of the time
of the Effective Date of the Agreement, which was on or about July 1, 2015 as stated above.
Upon analyzing this clear and unambiguous language, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not
waive his current claims. As Plaintiff correctly points out, a cause of action for a denial of benefits
under ERISA accrues at the time said benefits are denied. See Romero
i
At/state Corp., 404 F.3d
212, 221 (3d Cir. 2005). Similarly, if this case is instead governed by contract law, then said claim
accrued at the time of the supposed breach. See Windsor (‘ard Shops, Inc. v. Hal/mark C’ards,
Inc., 957 F. Supp. 562, 566 (D.N.J. 1997); see also Nix v. Option One Mortg. Corp., No. 05-3685,
2006 WL 166451, at *10 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2006) (“a breach of contract claim generally accrues at
the time of the alleged breach”). Here, the conduct underlying Plaintiffs causes of action occurred
on or around February 2016, when Plaintiff received his benefit payment and Defendants denied
Plaintiffs request for the additional benefit payment. Considering Plaintiffs causes of action for
8
unpaid benefits did not accrue until after July 1, 2015, i.e., the approximate Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement, and considering a plain reading of the Settlement Agreement shows that
Plaintiff only disclaimed those causes of action that, whether known or unknown, had occurred by
the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not disclaim
his current causes of action under the Settlement Agreement.
B. The Application of ERISA
In order for Defendant Program to qualify as a pension benefit plan governed by ERISA it
must, “by its express terms or as a result of surrounding circumstances,” either: (1) “provide[]
retirement income to employees”; or (2) “result[] in a deferral of income by employees for periods
extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond.” 29 U.S.C.
§ 1002(2)(A). “The
words ‘provides retirement income’ patently refer only to plans designed for the purpose of paying
retirement income whether as a result of their express tenTis or surrounding circumstances.”
Murphy v. Inexco Oil Co., 611 F.2d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Oatway v. Ani. Int’l Grp.,
Inc., 325 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir. 2003) (affirming a district court decision that determined the
application of ERISA under the Murphy analysis).
Here, Defendant Program does not qualify as a pension benefit plan under the first prong
articulated above, because Defendant Program’s express purpose is not to provide retirement
benefits but rather to avoid certain tax liabilities by deferring income until the following year for
currently working highly compensated employees. (Excess Benefit Plan at 2). Plaintiff seems to
concede this point as he does not raise any arguments regarding the first prong. (See generally
ECF Nos. 82-3, 88, 92).
Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Program qualified under the second prong because:
(1) a participant’s income and benefits under the plan was deferred until the following year, which
9
could extend until after retirement; and (2) certain participants had the option to defer their excess
benefit payments until their retirement or the end of their employment. (ECF No. $8 at 9—12). To
support these arguments, Plaintiff relies on a Fifth Circuit case where employees participated in a
deferred compensation plan which had similar language to Defendant Program and allowed
participants to elect whether their benefit payments would be distributed during their employment
or after their separation from the company. See To/bert v. RBC Capital Mkts. Corp., 758 F.3d 619,
622 (5th Cir. 2014). In To/bert, the fifth Circuit concluded that the benefit plan was governed by
ERISA because, pursuant to the plan’s plain terms, it deferred income to a later date and provided
for certain amounts that would only fully vest upon the participant’s separation from the employer.
Id. at 758 F.3d at 625—26
While the Court agrees that Defendant Program deferred its participant’s income, the Court
cannot conclude that said deferral extended until the end of covered employment or beyond.
Contrary to the position taken by Plaintiff, “the mere fact that some payments under a plan may
be made after an employee has retired or has left the company does not result in ERISA coverage
by statutory definition” under the second prong. Oatwav, 325 F.3d at I $8 (citing Murphy, 611
F.2d at 576).
Furthermore, Defendant Program is not comparable to the plan considered in To/bert, 75$
F.3d at 626, as Defendant Program did not: (I) permit its participants to choose at the outset to
defer income until retirement; and (2) provide any amount of benefits that would only fully vest
after the end of a participant’s employment. (See general/v Excess Benefit Plan). Though it is
true that the Grandfathered Participants had the option to defer their benefit payments until
retirement similar to the previous version of Defendant Program, that option was not available to
Plaintiff, who was not one of the Grandfathered Participants and who did not participate in
10
Defendant Program until 2008, i.e., after Defendant Program was amended. (Pl.’s SMF
¶J 21, 25,
27). Indeed, as required by Defendant Program’s plain terms, Plaintiff received his fully vested
excess benefit payments on an annual basis while he was still employed. (Pl.’s SMF
¶ 27).
To
conclude that this type of plan deferred its participant’s income until the end of employment or
beyond would require this Court to impermnissibly read ERISA’s terms “as an elastic girdle that
can be stretched to cover any content that can conceivably fit within its reach.” To/bert, 758 F.3d
at 623—24 (quoting Murphy, 611 F.2d at 575). Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Program
does not qualify as an ERISA governed pension benefit plan under either of the prongs articulated
above. Accordingly, this case is not governed by ERISA and judgment must be entered in favor
of Defendants in regard to Count One.
C. The Definition of “Earnings”
The Court’s analysis does not conclude simply because ERISA does not govern this case.
Rather, as Plaintiff correctly points out, a benefit plan such as Defendant Program may amount to
a unilateral contract. Kemmerer v. IGAms. Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir. 1995) (“A pension
plan is a unilateral contract which creates a vested right in those employees who accept the offer
it contains by continuing in employment for the requisite number of years.”) (citations omitted).
“Under unilateral contract principles, once the employee performs, the offer becomes irrevocable,
the contract is completed, and the employer is required to comply with its side of the bargain.” Id.
Neither party’s interpretation of a unilateral contract is given deference over the other party’s
interpretation.
Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson, 251 f.3d 433, 443 (3d Cir. 2001).
Here,
Defendants argue that, assuming Defendant Program could amount to a unilateral contract,
judgment must nevertheless be entered in their favor because there was no breach of the unilateral
contract. (ECF No. 81-1 at 17—18). Specifically, Defendants claim that there was no breach of
11
Defendant Program because the Settlement Payment was not “earnings” that needed to be included
in Defendant Program’s calculations. (kL).
The Court finds that a material dispute of fact exists as to whether or not the Settlement
Payment was intended by the parties to the Settlement Agreement to be “earnings” as contemplated
by Defendant Program. On the one hand, Defendants argue that the Settlement Payment was not
“earnings” under Defendant Program because it was not given to Plaintiff for work performed, but
rather it was given, as stated in the Settlement Agreement, “to buy peace” and prevent litigation.
(Id. at 10—17). To support this argument, Defendants point out that the definition of “covered
earnings” in Defendant Program was provided in the Linde Pension Plan and defined as “base
salary or wages, plus bonuses, or other regular remuneration
.
.
.
for services as an Eligible
Employee.” (ECF No. 82-16 at 4). This definition did not encompass “any other remuneration
paid to an Employee which his Employer, on a uniform and nondiscriminatory basis applicable to
all Employees in similar circumstances, shall determine to be overtime pay, shift differential,
premium pay.
.
.
or any other form of additional or special compensation.” (Id.).
On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that the parties to the Settlement Agreement intended
for the Settlement Payment to be designated as “wages,” which is included in the Linde Pension
Plan and Defendant Program’s definition of “earnings.” (ECE No. 88 at 21—23). To stipport his
argument, Plaintiff points to the surrounding circumstances of the Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement Payment. For example, Plaintiff points to the undisputed fact that Defendant Linde
issued an earnings statement along with the Settlement Payment, which listed the Settlement
Payment as “earnings.” (Pl.’s SMF J 12—14; ECF No. 82-13). Plaintiff also notes that Defendant
Linde completed a remuneration statement that included the Settlement Payment in Plaintiffs
gross earnings for 2015. (Pl.’s SMF
¶
15; ECF No. 82-14). Finally, pursuant to the Settlement
12
Agreement’s express terms. Defendant Linde included the Settlement Payment in a W-2 form,
which designated the Settlement Payment as “wages.” (ECF No. 82-15).
Contrary to Defendants’ argument, a settlement payment can be construed as earnings
depending on the terms of the settlement agreement and the context of the underlying dispute. See
Eckerstee v. WGAL TV, Inc., $31 f.2d 1204, 1209—10 (3d Cir. 1987) (determining that a settlement
payment was “earnings” based on the plain terms and context of the settlement agreement).
Because both Plaintiff and Defendants have set forth plausible interpretations as to whether or not
the Settlement Payment was included as “earnings” under Defendant Program, which are each
supported by facts and evidence in the record, and because a determination of whether or not the
Settlement Payment qualified as earnings under Defendant Program is material to Plaintiffs
breach of contract claim, it would be inappropriate for the Court to find in favor of either side at
this stage. Rather, in light of the record described above, the facts surrounding the Settlement
Agreement’s terms and the supposed intention of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to
designate the Settlement Payment as “wages” for purposes of Defendant Program’s excess benefit
payments calculation, or lack thereof. should be lefi for a determination by the finder of facts.
Furthen-nore, because the Court finds a material dispute of fact related to Plaintiffs claim
for breach of contract, it would be premature to find for either party with regard to Plaintiffs claim
for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing at this time. See Coleman v. Deutsche
BankNat’l ft. Co., No. 15-1080. 2015 WL 2226022, at *5 (D.N.J. May 12, 2015) (stating that a
claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that “a contract exist
between plaintiff and defendant.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, both Defendants’ Motion and
Plaintiffs Cross-Motion are denied to the extent that they seek judgment on Counts Two and Three
of Plaintiffs Complaint.
IV.
CONCLUSION
for the reasons expressed above, Defendants’ Motion seeking judgment on Count One is
hereby granted, but Defendants’ Motion seeking judgment on Counts Two and Three and
Plaintiffs Cross-Motion are hereby denied.
Dated: Aprit 2OI9.
United States District Court
14
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?