Pension Plan of the Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute v. Orange-Douglas et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/13/2015. (pes1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PENSIONPLAN OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST LABORATORIES, BATTELLE
MEMORIAL INSTITUTE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-218
Magistrate Judge King

MARIA ORANGE-DOUGLAS, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action in interpleader to determine which of the
defendants, decedent’s surviving spouse or surviving son, is entitled
to benefits under plaintiff’s pension plan.

Defendants Maria Orange-

Douglas and Michael Johnson, who are each proceeding pro se, have
asserted claims to the benefits.
With the consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this
matter is now before the Court on defendant Johnson’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF 24.
The standard for summary judgment is well established.

This

standard is found in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides in pertinent part: “The court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Pursuant to Rule 56(a), summary

judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.”

Id.

In making this determination, the evidence “must be viewed

in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party.
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).

Adickes v. S.H.

Summary judgment will not lie

if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, “that is, if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).
The “party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its
motion, and identifying those portions” of the record which
demonstrate “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

The burden then

shifts to the nonmoving party who “must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
at 250 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

Anderson, 477 U.S.

“Once the moving party has

proved that no material facts exist, the non-moving party must do more
than raise a metaphysical or conjectural doubt about issues requiring
resolution at trial.”

Agristor Fin. Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d

233, 236 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)).
Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment does not provide
a basis for granting summary judgment.

A party seeking summary

judgment must cite to particular materials in the record to
demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2

See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c).

This means that a party seeking summary

judgment must provide the documents that the Court will have to
construe to make a decision on the merits of the case.

In this

particular case, resolution of the issues presented will require
consideration of, at a minimum, a copy of the relevant portions of the
pension plan.1

The parties may, of course, also provide other

appropriate evidence in support of, or in response to, a motion for
summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Because defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment does not
provide a copy of the relevant pension plan documents for the Court’s
consideration, that Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 24, is DENIED.
Because both defendants are proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, this denial is without prejudice to the filing of additional
motions for summary judgment. The Preliminary Pretrial Order, ECF 9,
requires that motions for summary judgment be filed by January 15,
2015; the parties may have until February 2, 2015 to file motions for
summary judgment.
Defendants are advised that they have twenty-four days to oppose
any motion filed by any other party and that their failure to respond
to a motion is likely to result in the grant of that motion.

January 13, 2015

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The record appears to include beneficiary designation forms. See Exhibit A,
attached to Answer and Crossclaim, ECF 8; Documents attached to Motion for
Summary Judgment, PageID# 72-73.

3