Merry Diaz v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.

facts.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 411–12 (2013) (alteration in

original) (further internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). With their summary judgment motion,

Appellees submitted evidence that Appellant Diaz has received—and will continue

to receive—all the monthly benefits to which she is entitled under Westco’s

defined-benefit pension plan and that Appellant Perez never applied for the death

benefit to which she claims entitlement under the plan. In response, Appellants

2 presented no evidence that created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

Appellants suffered an injury-in-fact. “Misconduct by the administrators of a

defined benefit plan will not affect an individual’s entitlement to a defined benefit

unless it creates or enhances the risk of default by the entire plan.” Thole v. U.S.

Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1622 (2020) (quoting LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg, &

Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 255 (2008)). The undisputed evidence in the record

shows that the plan is not currently at risk of default.

With respect to Appellants’ “meaningful benefits” theory, although

Appellants…