Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00972/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00972-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-00972-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN COLACO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE ASIC ADVANTAGE SIMPLEFIED 

EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00972-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Re: Docket No. 90)

Plaintiffs Stephen Colaco, Tom Gammon, Srivalli Chandra, Terry Jones, Quy Lau, David 

Lichtenstein, Sina Ma, Michael Mullen, Trinh Nguyen, Amaaduddin Quraishi, David Robertson, 

Stephen Thomas, Nhan Tran and Moddy Wong move for judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, or 

alternatively, summary judgment against Defendants The ASIC Advantage Simplified Employee 

Pension Plan, ASIC Advantage, Inc. and Microsemi Corporation.1 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED 

as procedurally improper.

Given the procedural posture of this case, judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 is premature. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 authorizes the court to enter judgment on an issue if a party has “been fully 

heard” on it “during a nonjury trial and the court finds against the party on that issue.” Trial has 

not yet occurred and the parties have not been fully heard. Plaintiffs argue that a Rule 52 

judgment is the appropriate procedure for resolving this matter and cite to Kearney v. Standard 

Insurance Co.2 However, Kearney stated that when there is a genuine issue of fact in an ERISA 

 

1

See Docket No. 90 at 12-13.

2

175 F.3d 1084, 1094-59 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); See Docket No. 90 at 12.

Case 4:13-cv-00972-HSG Document 100 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-00972-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case, “the genuine issue of fact must be resolved by trial.”3 If the standard of review for the 

district court is de novo, then the trial is “on the administrative record,”4along with any additional 

evidence that circumstances “‘clearly establish . . . is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo

review.’”5 While Kearney allows for trials to be held on the administrative record, it does not 

allow the court to enter judgment under Rule 52 before a trial on the record has occurred.

Summary judgment also is inappropriate at this stage. The court previously found that 

there were several genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs’ releases were valid, 

whether Plaintiffs’ SEP benefits had accrued and could not be released, and whether the plain 

language of the separation agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants includes the SEP 

benefits at stake.6 All of these issues remain in dispute. They affect whether Plaintiffs’ 

“separation agreements bar this lawsuit,”7and so summary judgment remains as inappropriate 

now as it was in September 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3 Kearney, 175 F.3d at 1094.

4

Id.

5

Id. at 1091 (quoting Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben. Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 

944 (9th Cir. 1995)).

6

See Docket No. 89 at 2.

7

Id. at 19.

Case 4:13-cv-00972-HSG Document 100 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2