Gamble v. The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plan et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting dfts' 64 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying as moot dfts' 65 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MICHAEL GAMBLE and CHARLOTTE
GAMBLE, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11
12

THE BOEING COMPANY EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT PLAN, THE BOEING
COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PLAN COMMITTEE,

Case No. C10-1618RSL
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. # 64) and/or motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 65). Both concern the same
issue: Defendants’ belief that the Court denied their previous request for summary

17
18
19
20

judgment based on a material misunderstanding as to whether Defendants eliminated the
early retirement penalty previously imposed on Plaintiffs’ benefits when he retired for a
second time in 2006.
Defendants are correct. When it denied Defendants’ motion, the Court was under

21

the impression that Mr. Gamble’s benefit had not been adjusted to remove the early

22

retirement penalty previously imposed. See Order (Dkt. # 63) at 6–8. But as the

23

evidence demonstrates, Dkt. # 45 (AR 26); Dkt. # 48 at 11, and Plaintiffs concede,

24

Response (Dkt. # 66) at 2–3, that is not the case. Upon his second retirement, Mr.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

Gamble’s benefit was recalculated to eliminate the early retirement benefit previously

2

imposed. Dkt. # 45 (AR 26); Dkt. # 48 at 11; Dkt. # 66 at 2–3.

3

Accordingly, the Court’s conclusion that Defendants violated ERISA

4

§ 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) by failing to recalculate “Mr. Gamble’s

5
6
7

BCERP benefit upon his second retirement to reduce the early retirement penalty
imposed in 1991,” Dkt. # 63 at 7–8, was erroneous. And as this was the sole basis for
the Court’s denial of Defendants’ original summary judgment motion (Dkt. # 43), the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 64). See Local Civil

8
Rule 7(h)(1). Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claim
9
10

that the Committee abused its discretion under the literal terms of the Plan when it
denied Mr. Gamble’s request to merge his two periods of employment together for

11

purposes of calculating his pension benefit. As a result, only Plaintiffs’ equitable

12

estoppel theory of liability remains at issue.1

13
14

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, it DENIES as
moot Defendants’ related motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 65).

15
16

DATED this 5th day of June, 2012.

17

A

18

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

In its prior Order (Dkt. # 63), the Court merely denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment on this claim. Accordingly, the theory remains at issue.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2