Schuman

Schuman v. Microchip Tech. Inc.

Good Law
302 F. Supp. 3d 1101
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 2018Case No.16–cv–05544–HSGCalifornia9,814 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No.

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge *1107 Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Defendants Microchip Technology, Inc. ("Microchip"), Atmel Corp. ("Atmel"), and Atmel Corp. U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program ("the Atmel Plan" or "the Plan"). Dkt. No. 33. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

Plaintiffs Peter Schuman and William Coplin are former employees of Atmel and Microchip, as well as participants in the Atmel Plan. Dkt. No. 29 ("First Amended Complaint" or "FAC") ¶¶ 13-14. They bring this putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). For purposes of this motion, the Court accepts the following as true.

1. The Atmel Plan

Atmel, a supplier of "general purpose microcontrollers," created the Atmel Plan in July 2015 in response to market speculation regarding the company's future and the resulting uncertainty among its approximately 1,800 U.S. employees. See FAC ¶¶ 18-19. The company…

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.