Schuett

Schuett v. FedEx Corp.

Good Law
119 F. Supp. 3d 1155·2016 WL 104267·61 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1348·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 2016Case No. 15-cv-0189-PJHCalifornia6,677 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hamilton, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings came on for hearing before this court on October 7, 2015. Plaintiff appeared by her counsel Nina Wasow and Julie Wilensky, and defendants appeared by their counsel Sandra Isom. Having read the parties’ papers, including the additional briefing ordered at the hearing, and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Stacey Schuett, who resides in Sebastopol, California, was married to Lesly Taboada-Hall on June 19,' 2013; in Sonoma County, California. Prior to their marriage, they had lived together in a committed relationship for 27 years, and had two children. They entered into a California Registered Domestic Partnership in November 2001.

Plaintiff' alleges that Ms. Taboada-Hall worked for FedEx Corporation 1 for 26 years and was a fully-vested participant in defendant FedEx Corporation’s Employees’ Pension Plan, a defined Traditional Pension Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et…

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.