Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00097/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1002 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Maureen Terri Angichiodo,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Honeywell Pension and Savings Plan, and 

Salaried Employees Pension Plan of 

AlliedSignal, Inc., Plan Administrator of 

the Honeywell Pension and Savings Plan, 

Plan Administrator of Salaried Employees 

Pension Plan of AlliedSignal, Inc., and 

Honeywell International, Inc., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00097-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 47.) 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion for summary judgment tests whether the opposing party has sufficient 

evidence to merit a trial. Summary judgment should be granted if the evidence reveals no 

genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that might affect the outcome 

of the suit under the governing law, and a factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

The movant has the burden of showing the absence of genuine disputes of material 

fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). However, once the movant 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 12
- 2 - 

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 

shows an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the burden shifts to 

the party resisting the motion. The party opposing summary judgment must then “set 

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” and may not rest upon 

the pleadings. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. To carry this burden, the nonmoving party 

must do more than simply show there is “some metaphysical doubt as to the material 

facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, must not weigh the evidence or assess 

its credibility, and must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Anderson, 477 

U.S. at 255. Where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to 

find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 

587. 

The Local Rules require that any party filing a motion for summary judgment file 

a statement, separate from the motion and memorandum of law, that sets forth each 

material fact on which the party relies in support of the motion. LRCiv. 56.1(a). “Each 

material fact in the separate statement must be set forth in a separately numbered 

paragraph and must refer to a specific admissible portion of the record where the fact 

finds support (for example, affidavit, deposition, discovery response, etc.).” Id. Only 

material facts should be included in the separate statement of facts; other undisputed facts 

that provide context may be included in the memorandum of law. Id.

Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file a separate 

controverting statement of facts that sets forth: 

(1) for each paragraph of the moving party’s separate 

statement of facts, a correspondingly numbered paragraph 

indicating whether the party disputes the statement of fact set 

forth in that paragraph and a reference to the specific 

admissible portion of the record supporting the party’s 

position if the fact is disputed; and (2) any additional facts 

that establish a genuine issue of material fact or otherwise 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 12
- 3 - 

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 

preclude judgment in favor of the moving party. Each 

additional fact must be set forth in a separately numbered 

paragraph and must refer to a specific admissible portion of 

the record where the fact finds support. 

LRCiv 56.1(b). The moving party may file a reply memorandum, but the Local Rules do 

not authorize filing a separate statement responding to the nonmoving party’s 

controverting statement of facts. See LRCiv 56.1(d). If a party fails to properly support 

an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, the court 

may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 

II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

Defendants filed a separate statement of material facts in support of their motion 

for summary judgment. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ statement of 

facts as required by the Local Rules, but instead filed a separate statement of facts and 

did not indicate that she disputes any of the facts set forth by Defendants. (Doc. 58.) In 

fact, some of the exhibits submitted by Plaintiff duplicate ones submitted by Defendants, 

and in her response to Defendants’ motion Plaintiff does not dispute any of Defendants’ 

facts or supporting exhibits. Therefore, the facts submitted by Defendants are considered 

undisputed for purposes of this motion. The facts submitted by Plaintiff are accepted as 

true to the extent they are consistent with the supporting exhibits. 

A. The Retirement Plan 

Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of Jerry Angichiodo. Mr. Angichiodo was a 

vested participant in Honeywell’s defined benefit retirement plan, the Honeywell 

Retirement Earnings Plan (“Plan”), Supplement C, titled the “AlliedSignal Inc. 

Retirement Program (Provisions Relating to Employees at the Company’s Signal 

Locations)” (“Signal Plan”). As explained in the Summary Plan Description, under the 

Signal Plan, the normal (i.e., default) form of pension payment for a married participant 

who retires before death is the Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity, which provides an 

amount equal to 50% of the pension payment the participant receives during his life to his 

surviving spouse after his death. When a married participant applies for retirement 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 12
- 4 - 

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 

benefits, he may elect a different pension payment option if he waives the Qualified Joint 

and Survivor Annuity option and his spouse provides written, notarized consent to the 

specific pension payment option he selects. 

Alternative pension payment options include Single-Life Annuity, which provides 

the maximum monthly payment to a participant for as long as he lives, but it provides no 

benefits after his death. The Survivor Annuity option provides reduced monthly 

payments to the participant during his life and, after his death, provides his spouse a 

monthly payment of 75% or 100% of the monthly payment the participant received 

during his life. The amount the monthly payment is reduced depends on whether the 

75% or 100% option is selected and the difference between the participant’s age and his 

spouse’s age. A participant may designate someone other than his spouse to receive the 

survivor annuity if his spouse consents and certain age restrictions are satisfied. Also, a 

participant may choose a 10-Year Certain & Life Annuity, which provides benefits for 

the participant’s life and guarantees benefits for ten years; if the participant dies before 

receiving 120 monthly pension payments, the remaining payments are paid to the 

participant’s beneficiary. However, in exchange for the ten-year guarantee, the monthly 

pension payments are reduced by 5%. 

The Summary Plan Description explains that when a participant applies for 

retirement, the Plan Administrator will verify the participant’s right to a pension benefit 

under the Plan and will grant or deny the application. If the application is granted, a 

detailed pension package will be sent to the participant, which includes a preliminary 

pension calculation and describes the procedure to follow to initiate pension payments, 

including electing pension payment options. In order to begin receiving retirement 

benefits on a certain date, a participant must apply for retirement benefits not more than 

90 or less than 45 days before that date and must elect a pension payment option no later 

than a given date. The Summary Plan Description provides a chart showing the 

applicable deadlines for beginning to receive pension payments on January 1, February 1, 

March 1, etc. For example, if a participant wants to begin receiving pension payments on 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 12
- 5 - 

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 

June 1, he must apply between March 1 and April 15 and elect a payment option by May 

31. The Summary Plan Description does not provide any exceptions to the minimum 

45-day period required for the verification and approval of a retirement application before 

commencement of benefits. 

However, if a participant applies for retirement, elects one of the Joint and 

Survivor Annuity options, and dies before his retirement benefits commence, his election 

will apply to the survivor benefits paid to his spouse. The Summary Plan Description 

states: 

If you submit a valid election of a Joint and Survivor Annuity and you die 

before your [Benefit Commencement Date], survivor benefits will be paid 

to your Spouse in accordance with that election. . . . If you submit a valid 

election of any other form of payment available under the Signal Formula 

and you die before your [Benefit Commencement Date], that election will 

automatically be canceled, and survivor benefits will be paid to your 

Spouse as described in the Section 6—Survivor Benefits. 

In Section 6—Survivor Benefits, the Summary Plan Description explains that if a 

participant dies while an active employee, his surviving spouse is eligible to receive a 

retirement benefit equal to 50% of the amount the participant would have received if he 

had terminated his employment with the company with a Single-Life Annuity payable at 

age 55, reduced using early retirement factors. If a participant dies after terminating his 

employment and he is eligible to receive a retirement benefit, but benefits have not 

commenced, his surviving spouse is eligible to receive a retirement benefit equal to 50% 

of the amount the participant would have received if he had retired on the day before he 

died with a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity reduced using factors based on his 

benefits eligibility at the time of termination of employment. 

Section 6.02(a) of the Signal Plan provides that if a participant dies while an active 

employee, his surviving spouse is eligible to receive a monthly annuity payable for life 

equal to 50% of the benefit that would have been paid to the participant had he retired on 

the day before his death with a Single-Life Annuity, determined without reduction for 

early commencement. Because Section 6.02(a) is inconsistent with Section 6 of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 12
- 6 - 

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 

Summary Plan Description, the Plan Administrator advised Plaintiff that she would be 

provided the greater benefit determined under the two documents. 

The Plan designates as the Plan Administrator Honeywell’s Vice President, 

Human Resources, Compensation and Benefits. It designates the Plan Administrator and 

the Pension Investment Committee as the Plan’s named fiduciaries. The Plan grants full 

discretionary authority to the Plan Administrator to determine eligibility for benefits and 

construe the Plan terms. The Plan Administrator may allocate administrative 

responsibility to others. Honeywell and the Plan Administrator have entered into an 

agreement with Hewitt Associates LLC pursuant to which Hewitt provides benefits 

administration services for the Plan, including recordkeeping services, telephone and 

website customer service, and the maintenance of the website accessible to Plan 

participants. The participant services provided by Hewitt for Plan participants and 

beneficiaries are referred to as the Honeywell Retirement Service Center. Honeywell 

instructs its supervisors and human resource generalists to direct any pension-related 

questions to the pension department or the Honeywell Retirement Service Center. 

B. Mr. Angichiodo 

Mr. Angichiodo was employed by Honeywell and its predecessor companies 

beginning in August 1974. On multiple occasions, Mr. Angichiodo and Plaintiff were 

informed about retirement benefits, including pre-retirement survivor benefits. In 1985, 

Mr. Angichiodo and Plaintiff both signed an election form for a “spouse protection” 

retirement benefit, choosing the option that would provide a monthly pension to the 

surviving spouse equal to one-half of the participant’s vested benefit if the participant 

died before retirement. In 2002, a year in which Mr. Angichiodo could have retired, the 

Plan Administrator advised Mr. Angichiodo that by continuing employment after his 

normal retirement age, he had decided to suspend payment of his retirement benefits until 

he actually retired and requested payments to begin. 

In August 2012, Mr. Angichiodo sent an electronic message to the Honeywell 

Retirement Service Center, asking whether his beneficiary could receive any or all of his 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 12
- 7 - 

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 

retirement income if he died before retiring. The Honeywell Retirement Service Center 

responded to Mr. Angichiodo that the Signal Plan provided pre-retirement death benefits 

that would provide his spouse a portion of his pension benefits if he died before 

beginning to receive pension payments and directed Mr. Angichiodo to a specific page on 

its website. The page, which Mr. Angichiodo apparently accessed, printed, and saved, 

stated that if he was actively employed on his date of death, the death benefit would equal 

50% of the Single Life Annuity as if he retired on the day before his death. Mr. 

Angichiodo also printed a table showing the estimated amount of his Projected 

Retirement Benefit if he retired on that date. The table listed pension payment options 

from which he could choose upon retirement, the estimated monthly payments these 

options would provide to him, and the estimated monthly payments these options would 

provide to his surviving spouse after his death. The options included: Single Life 

Annuity, 50% Joint and Survivor, 75% Joint and Survivor, 100% Joint and Survivor, and 

10-Year Certain and Life. Mr. Angichiodo had retrieved and saved similar projected 

pension benefit estimates in 2008. 

Mr. Angichiodo was eligible to retire under the Signal Plan after his 65th birthday, 

but chose to continue employment. In March 2013, Mr. Angichiodo became ill and 

began a medical leave, but he did not retire or complete the forms necessary to initiate 

retirement. As Plaintiff reported, Mr. Angichiodo loved his job, and until the day he 

died, he hoped to return to work. He remained employed until his death on April 10, 

2013. 

On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Honeywell Retirement Service Center of 

her husband’s death. She did not call or talk with anyone from the Honeywell Retirement 

Service Center or the Honeywell pension department in the period between her husband’s 

cancer diagnosis and his death. 

Because Mr. Angichiodo died before retiring or applying for retirement benefits, 

Plaintiff is entitled under the Signal Plan to the 50% survivor benefit that she is currently 

receiving. If Mr. Angichiodo had completed the retirement process before his death and 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 12
- 8 - 

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 

had chosen the 100% Joint and Survivor pension payment option, Plaintiff could have 

been entitled to a monthly payment greater than the amount she is currently receiving.1

 

C. Procedure for Expediting Retirement Paperwork 

In October 2013, Plaintiff filed a claim to receive monthly benefit payments equal 

to the survivor portion of the 100% Joint and Survivor Annuity. In April 2014, Cynthia 

Robinson, a delegate of the Plan Administrator, denied the claim. Among other things, 

Ms. Robinson’s letter stated: “The Plan and the Service Center have procedures in place 

to help participants with severe illnesses receive information about their retirement 

benefits and complete the retirement paperwork as quickly as possible if they wish to 

retire. Neither the Plan nor the Service Center has any record that Mr. Angichiodo’s 

medical condition was brought to their attention before he died.” 

In May 2014, Plaintiff spoke with a call center representative of the Honeywell 

Retirement Service Center, who incorrectly said that an employee’s supervisor or human 

resources representative could initiate the retirement of a terminally ill employee or take 

other steps to ensure that a terminally ill employee retired before his death. 

In July 2014, Plaintiff was told in a letter from Christopher Gregg, on behalf of the 

Honeywell Pension and Savings Plan Appeals Committee: 

As stated before, the Plan has a process to help terminally ill employees 

understand their pension benefits and quickly make elections if that is what 

they wish to do. However, the process cannot be started if the Plan or its 

representatives do not receive information about the participant. In this 

case, no one contacted the Honeywell Retirement Service Center until after 

Mr. Angichiodo’s death on April 12, 2013. 

Thus, Plan representatives stated they assist terminally ill employees to complete 

their retirement paperwork. They did not say there was a procedure to reduce the 45-day 

minimum period between applying for retirement and commencing retirement benefits. 

There is no evidence before the Court showing that the Plan permits a terminally ill 

employee to retire immediately, the retirement process will be expedited for a terminally 

 1

The parties have not identified the amount Plaintiff currently is receiving or the 

amount she seeks to be paid. 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 12
- 9 - 

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 

ill employee, or the retirement process will be initiated on behalf of an employee who has 

not decided to retire. The Plan’s process for facilitating an employee’s completion of 

retirement paperwork is not an “expedited retirement process.” 

III. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint included two counts; the first count was resolved 

administratively and dismissed as moot. (Docs. 50-53.) The second count alleges breach 

of fiduciary duty against “Defendants” generally, but refers to “Plan Fiduciaries” and 

duties defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1), apparently seeking relief under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (Doc. 5.) 

The Amended Complaint identifies the following parties as Defendants: the Honeywell 

Pension and Savings Plan, the Salaried Employees Pension Plan of AlliedSignal, Inc., the 

Plan Administrator of the Honeywell Pension and Savings Plan, the Plan Administrator 

of the Salaried Employees Pension Plan of AlliedSignal, Inc., and Honeywell 

International, Inc. (Id.) It is not clear which Defendants Plaintiff alleges are “Plan 

Fiduciaries.” 

The Amended Complaint alleges that because Mr. Angichiodo was an active 

employee at the time of his death, Plaintiff was entitled to a survivor benefit of much less 

than the amount that she would have received if Mr. Angichiodo had retired and selected 

an option for 100% survivor benefits. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants 

breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by “concealing the process of retiring a 

terminally ill employee in order to permit the employee to make an appropriate pension 

election,” “failing to properly train human resource employees and managers about the 

proper procedures to follow when an employee becomes terminally ill,” “failing to 

provide [Plaintiff] with proper explanation of benefits,” “misrepresenting facts during the 

appeal process,” “concealing information regarding the process from [Plaintiff],” and 

“acting in their financial self-interest.” (Id. at 8.) 

In her Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff asserts 

that she brings a claim for breach of ERISA-imposed fiduciary duties, seeking “other 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 12
- 10 - 

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 

appropriate equitable relief” under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) to redress breaches of 

fiduciary duty by Plan Fiduciaries. (Doc. 57 at 8.) Section 1132(a)(3) provides that a 

civil action may be brought “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.” To establish an action 

for equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3), the defendant must be an ERISA fiduciary acting 

in its fiduciary capacity and must violate ERISA-imposed fiduciary obligations. Paulsen 

v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1075 (9th Cir. 2009). The term “equitable relief” in 

§ 1132(a)(3) means relief that was typically available in equity and excludes “makewhole monetary relief.” Id. at 1076. 

In her Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff states 

that “the Plan Administrator and the Pension Investment Committee, both named 

fiduciaries, breached their duties by concealing the process used to expeditiously retire 

terminally ill employees and failing to adequately describe that process in the plan 

documents.” (Doc. 57 at 2.) She also states that the Plan Fiduciaries breached their duty 

to provide complete and accurate information regarding the Plan’s “process that assists 

terminally ill employees to immediately retire, so that the employee can actually elect a 

pension option, rather than being stuck with the plan default.” (Doc. 57 at 3.) She 

contends that the process was not disclosed, someone should have advised her and Mr. 

Angichiodo that it existed, and she does not know who is a fiduciary.2

 (Id. at 6-7.) She 

further contends that the Plan Administrator breached its fiduciary duties by failing to 

disclose the expedited retirement process in the Summary Plan Description. (Id. at 7.) 

 2

Under ERISA, “a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he 

exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of 

such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of 

its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or 

indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority 

or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary 

responsibility in the administration of such plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 12
- 11 - 

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 

Although Plaintiff previously contended that Mr. Angichiodo’s supervisor and/or 

co-worker in human resources who knew of his cancer diagnosis should have reported his 

illness to the Honeywell Retirement Service Center or to a Honeywell employee with 

pension responsibilities to initiate the retirement application process, she does not argue 

that the supervisor and/or co-worker had ERISA fiduciary duties. Now she contends that 

“someone” should have told Mr. Angichiodo and her about the undisclosed process and 

the Plan Administrator should have disclosed the process in the Summary Plan 

Description. 

Assuming the Plan Administrator owed Mr. Angichiodo and Plaintiff a fiduciary 

duty to provide complete and accurate information regarding retirement benefits and the 

process for obtaining them, there is no evidence the Plan Administrator breached that 

duty. The Plan and the Honeywell Retirement Service Center had procedures to assist 

participants with severe illnesses to complete their applications for retirement benefits as 

quickly as possible. They did not have a procedure, or the authority, to terminate a 

participant’s employment or complete a participant’s application for retirement benefits 

on behalf of a participant. They did not have a procedure that would enable a participant 

to obtain retirement benefits “immediately” or that would expedite the time required for 

verification and approval of the retirement application. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of 

fiduciary duty rests on her incorrect belief that such a procedure existed and was not 

disclosed in the information provided to Mr. Angichiodo and her. The Plan 

Administrator had no duty to disclose a procedure that did not exist. 

Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the “equitable relief” she seeks under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(a)(3) is a “surcharge” in an amount equivalent to the monetary benefit she would 

have received under the Plan, but for the Plan Administrator’s breach of fiduciary duty. 

(Doc. 57 at 8-9.) “Make-whole monetary relief” is not available under § 1132(a)(3). 

Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 1076. Plaintiff does not seek relief that can be awarded under 

§ 1132(a)(3). 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 12
- 12 - 

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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 47) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendants 

and against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff takes nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

Dated this 9th day of December, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00097-NVW Document 60 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 12