Skinner

Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B

Good Law
673 F.3d 1162·2012 WL 887600·52 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2089·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5517
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 201210-55161California1,878 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Appellants Charles Skinner and Gregory Stratton appeal summary judgment rejecting their claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I. Facts and procedural history

Appellants were employees of Litton Industries, Inc., and participated in its retirement plan, which was called Litton Industries, Inc., Retirement Plan B (“Litton Plan B”). Following corporate mergers and plan modifications, Appellants sued the successor corporation, Northrop Grumman, and Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B (“Northrop Plan B”), the plan that replaced Litton Plan B, under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to enforce their understanding of their rights under Northrop Plan B.

By June 2004, Appellant Skinner was anticipating retirement, and he received a pension calculation packet. That packet’s formulas illustrated how Skinner’s transition benefit would be calculated based on his salary, contributions, and age at retirement. The formulas included an “annuity equivalent offset.” In December 2004 and April 2005, Skinner received additional pension calculation packets, both of which also included the annuity equivalent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.