Ashline v. Tri-State Envelope Corporation et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Richard Feudale, Esquire on behalf of the Co-Administrators of the Estate of Michael E. Ashline for and filed by Michael E. Ashline, 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tri-State Envelope Corporation. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on October 15, 2019. (kjn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELIZABETH ASHLINE,
Plaintiff
v.

TRI-STATE ENVELOPE
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-0434

(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
October 15, 2019
The plaintiff Elizabeth Ashline (“Ashline”) brings claims against the
defendants Tri-State Envelope Corporation (“Tri-State”), R.P. Mills Associates, Inc.
(“R.P. Mills”), and Michael E. Ashline (“Michael Ashline”). Ashline’s claims are
based on a divorce decree issued by the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas.
She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”) as well as claims of breach of contract.
We previously granted R.P. Mills’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the
Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
(“QDRO”), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and
on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills, as is

necessary for Ashline to state a breach-of-contract claim. Currently pending are
motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Ashline and Tri-State.
Michael Ashline died on July 22, 2018. See doc. 49 (“Suggestion of Death
Upon the Record”). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a), if after a party dies, a motion to
substitute the proper party is not filed “within 90 days after the service of a statement
noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Here,
the “Suggestion of Death Upon the Record” was filed on July 9, 2019. Doc. 49.
More than 90 days have elapsed since that that suggestion of death was filed and a
motion to substitute the proper party has not been made. Thus, in accordance with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a), the claims against Michael Ashline will be dismissed. And
given that dismissal, the motion for summary judgment purportedly filed on behalf
of Michael Ashline will be dismissed as moot.
We will also grant Tri-State’s motion for summary judgment because there is
no genuine dispute there is no QDRO, as is necessary for Ashline to pursue a claim
under ERISA.1 Further, there is no genuine dispute that there is no contract

1

For a discussion of QDROs, and why the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not
a QDRO see our Memorandum Opinion of November 27, 2018. Doc. 39. Ashline
suggests that she yet may be able to obtain a QDRO. And she might. See Files v.
ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478, 491 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Nothing in the
statute, or in our precedent, requires that a QDRO be in place prior to the death of a
plan participant when the QDRO that is ultimately obtained by engaging the
statutory process simply seeks to enforce a separate interest in a pension benefit that
2

between Ashline and Tri-State, as is necessary for Ashline to pursue a
breach-of-contract claim against Tri-State.2
Based on the foregoing, we will dismiss the claims against Michael Ashline
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a), dismiss as moot Michael Ashline’s motion for
summary judgment, and grant Tri-State’s motion for summary judgment. An
appropriate order follows.

S/Susan E. Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

existed before the death of the plan participant.”). But there is no genuine dispute
that, to date, she has not obtained a QDRO. And while Ashline points to a draft
QRDO prepared and signed by her counsel, see doc. 59-2 at 9–15, there is no
evidence that the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas entered such an order.
2

Ashline suggests that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is a contract. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that the divorce decree can be construed as a
judicially approved contract, see Gruber v. PPL Ret. Plan, 520 F. App’x 112, 116
(3d Cir. 2013) (stating that “the interpretation of a judicially-approved contract—the
QDRO” was at issue there), Tri-State was not a party to that contract. And, as we
stated in the Memorandum Opinion of November 28, 2018, “Ashline cannot
sidestep the requirements of ERISA with respect to QDROs by labeling her claim as
a breach-of-contract claim.” Doc. 39 at 14.
3