Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05282/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05282-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Default against Goin was entered by the Clerk of this Court on August 23, 2005. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAMES M. LEONARD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5282

JUNE ELOISE GOIN A/K/A

ELOISE LEONARD AND

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND

ENGINE CORPORATION DEFENDANTS

ORDER

NOW on this 19th day of September 2006, the above referenced

matter comes on for consideration of Defendant International Truck

and Engine Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 5).

Having reviewed the pleadings of the parties, and all other

matters of relevance before it, the Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows: 

1. The plaintiff initiated this matter in the Circuit Court

of Washington County, Arkansas on October 12, 2004 when he filed

his complaint against the defendants. 

2. Separate defendant International Truck and Engine

Corporation (hereinafter “International”) removed the matter to

this Court on November 18, 2004 asserting federal question

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. The plaintiff’s complaint names both International and

June Eloise Goin, a/k/a Eloise Leonard, (hereinafter “Goin”) as 1

defendants. The complaint solely seeks an order requiring

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

International to remove Goin from all benefits of the plaintiff’s

retirement and pension plan with International. 

4. Following International’s removal to this Court, the

Court invited briefs from the parties on the issue of whether this

Court has jurisdiction over this matter. The Court, then, having

reviewed the briefs of the parties, invited a motion for summary

judgment by International to bring the issues of this case

properly before the Court for review. International has now

filed its motion for summary judgment and the issues presented are

ripe for consideration. 

5. The standard to be applied to a motion for summary

judgment is set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and provides for the entry of summary judgment on a

claim

if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

F.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Carroll v. Pfeffer, 262 F.3d 847 (8th

Cir. 2001); Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256 (8 Cir. th

1996). Summary judgment is to be granted only where the evidence

is such that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

250 (1986). Accordingly, all evidence must be viewed in the light

“most favorable to the non-moving party.” F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
Although International has filed a statement of material facts which it contends 2

are uncontested, the plaintiff has neither specifically responded to International’s

statement of facts nor filed a statement of facts which he contends are disputed.

According to Local Rule 56.1(c) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the

Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, “[a]ll material facts set forth in the

statement filed by the moving party . . . shall be deemed admitted unless controverted

by the statement filed by the non-moving party . . . .” 

-3-

F.3d 258, 263 (8 Cir. 1997); see also Bailey v. United States th

Postal Service, 208 F.3d 652, 654 (8th Cir. 2000). 

Where a movant makes and properly supports a motion for

summary judgment, the opposing party may not rest upon the

allegations or denials of its pleadings; rather, the non-movant

must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 256. The non-moving

party must "make a sufficient showing on every essential element

of its case for which it has the burden of proof at trial."

Wilson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 55 F.3d 399, 405 (8th Cir.

1995). 

6. A review of the parties’ pleadings reveals that the

following facts exist without substantial dispute:2

* The plaintiff was an employee of International, and

retired from International in 1985.

* Through his employment with International, the plaintiff

was a participant in a retirement plan, the Navistar Financial

Corporation Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees (hereinafter

the “Plan”). The Plan is subject to the requirements of the

Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”)

* International serves as the Plan Administrator for the

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Plan. The Plan remains in force. 

* The plaintiff and Goin were married on October 29, 1989.

They were subsequently divorced, by an order of the Chancery Court

of Washington County, Arkansas, on April 5, 1999. 

* During the marriage of the plaintiff and Goin, Goin was

designated as a beneficiary under the Plan.

* Although, since the divorce, the plaintiff has requested

that International remove Goin as beneficiary under the Plan,

International has refused to take such action without receiving a

Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to that effect. 

* There has not been a Qualified Domestic Relations Order

issued by any court directing International to remove Goin as

beneficiary under the Plan. 

7. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,

ERISA, codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, “is a comprehensive

statute that sets certain uniform standards and requirements for

employee benefit plans. ERISA covers both pension benefit plans,

which provide employees with retirement income, and welfare

benefit plans, which provide employees with health, legal,

vacation, or training benefits.” Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue

Shield v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 947 F.2d 1341, 1343, n.1 (8th

Cir. 1991)(citations omitted). ERISA was enacted by Congress 

to protect interstate commerce and the interests of

participants in employee benefits plans and their

beneficiaries, by requiring the disclosure and reporting

to participants and beneficiaries of financial and other

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

information with respect thereto, by establishing

standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for

fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing

for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to

the Federal courts.

29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Further, “[t]o meet the goals ‘of a

comprehensive and pervasive Federal interest and the interests of

uniformity with respect to interstate plans,’ Congress included an

express preemption clause in ERISA for ‘the displacement of State

action in the field of private employee benefit programs.’” Wilson

v. Zoellner, 114 F.3d 713, 715-16 (8 Cir. 1997)(quoting Morstein th

v. National Ins. Servs., Inc., 93 F.3d 715, 719 n.6 (11 Cir. th

1996)). 

8. Initially, the Court notes that, in his brief, the

plaintiff has raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

International asserts that this action arises under Sections

502(a)(3) and 502(e)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3),

1132(e)(1), in that plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form

of an injunction directing International, as the Plan

Administrator of the Navistar Financial Corporation Retirement

Plan for Salaried Employees, to take specific action to remove

plaintiff’s former spouse as a beneficiary who may become entitled

to a survivor’s annuity under the plan. Although the plaintiff

argues that subject matter jurisdiction is not present, the Court

finds that this matter is governed by the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

The complaint seeks an order requiring International to remove

Goin from all benefits of the plaintiff’s retirement and pension

plan with International. The provisions of ERISA provide that 

[a] civil action may be brought . . . (3) by a

participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any

act or practice which violates any provision of this

subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain

other appropriate equitable relief (I) to redress such

violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this

subchapter or the terms of the plan;

29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3); and, the plaintiff, a participant in the

plan, is seeking such relief. 

9. As set forth above, the plaintiff seeks an order

requiring International to remove Goin from all benefits of the

plaintiff’s retirement and pension plan with International.

However, ERISA requires employee pension plans to provide that

plan benefits “may not be assigned or alienated.” 29 U.S.C. §

1056(d)(1). This anti-alienation provision applies even in the

event of divorce decree unless a “qualified domestic relations

order” has been entered. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). 

It is undisputed that a qualified domestic relations order

has not been entered by any court. Further, as the federal courts

are divested of power over domestic relations matters, the law is

clear that this Court has no power to enter a qualified domestic

relations order. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689

(1992); Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859 (8 Cir. 1994). The Court th

therefore, finds that the relief requested by the plaintiff is not

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

available under the statutory confines of ERISA, and that

International’s motion for summary judgment should be granted. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that Defendant International Truck

and Engine Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 5)

should be, and it hereby is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05282-JLH Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>