IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COLLEEN M. SNOW, : No. 4:CV-06-0007

:

Plaintiff, : Complaint Filed 01/03/06

:

vs. : 

:

FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION, : (Judge Muir)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, :

and EDISON COMPANY EMPLOYEE :

PENSION PLAN, :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

 April 25, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On January 3, 2006, Plaintiff Colleen M. Snow initiated this

action by filing a complaint. She filed an amended complaint on

March 15, 2006. Snow’s cause of action is based on the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.

(hereinafter “ERISA”), which regulates the pension and welfare

benefits of employees, retirees, and beneficiaries of privatesector pension and retirement plans. Snow alleges that the

Defendants FirstEnergy Corporation, Metropolitan Edison Company,

and Edison Company Employee Pension Plan have wrongfully denied

her certain retirement benefits which she had been receiving up

until the death of her husband Richard Snow.

On March 29, 2006, the Defendants filed a motion pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint

Case 4:06-cv-00007-MM Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 5
2

because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. A supporting brief was filed with that motion. The

Defendants contend that Snow is no longer entitled to receive any

benefits because she consented to her husband’s election not to

have any retirement benefits paid after Richard Snow’s death. On

April 6, 2006, Snow filed a brief in opposition to the motion to

dismiss. On or about April 20, 2006, the Defendants informed the

Clerk of Court that they would not be filing any reply brief. 

The Defendants’ motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition.

In determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon

which relief may be granted, a court must accept the veracity of

the plaintiff's allegations. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

(1974); Brouse v. Itinger, et al., Civil No. 88-1627 (M.D. Pa.

April 26, 1989). Furthermore, "the complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley vs. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 45-6 (1957); District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795

F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1986). However, the court is "not required to

accept legal conclusions either alleged or inferred from the

pleaded facts". Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d at 183 (quoting

Mescall v. Burrus, 603 F.2d 1266, 1269 (7th Cir. 1979)). We will

apply those concepts to the Defendants’ motion.

Case 4:06-cv-00007-MM Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 5
3

Our disposition of the motion to dismiss begins with, and is

controlled in large measure by, the document at issue which sets

forth the different options available to Richard Snow with

respect to his retirement benefits. Mr. Snow was employed by the

Metropolitan Edison Company until he retired in 1994. Mr. Snow

was a participant in the Metropolitan Edison Company Employee

Pension Plan. 

One of the options available to Mr. Snow when he retired was

“The Automatic Post-Retirement Surviving Spouse Option.” If a

retiree selected that option, the monthly pension payment would

continue to be paid to his or her surviving spouse after the

retiree’s death. In order for a retiree to decline the option of

having benefits paid to the surviving spouse, the retiree was

required to obtain his or her spouse’s consent and a form

documenting such consent was required to have been filed.

A single form divided into two separate sections deals with

“The Automatic Post-Retirement Surviving Spouse Option.” In the

first section of the form, entitled “Employee’s Election,” Mr.

Snow elected “not to be covered by the Automatic Post-Retirement

Surviving Spouse Option.” (Amended Complaint, Exhibit B) 

Consequently, the second section of the form, labeled “Spouse’s

Consent,” was required to have been filled out by Colleen M.

Snow. This part of the form has one box to be checked if the

spouse consented to the election made by the spouse, and a second

Case 4:06-cv-00007-MM Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 5
4

box to be checked if the spouse did not consent to that election. 

The form was required to have been signed, notarized, and

returned to the administrators of the retirement plan.

The portion of the form designed to confirm whether or not

Colleen M. Snow had consented to Mr. Snow’s election was signed,

notarized, and returned, but neither box relating to her consent

or lack thereof was checked. Colleen M. Snow’s claim in this

case is based on her allegations that the Defendants

inappropriately accepted the incomplete form and paid her husband

retirement benefits without ascertaining her position on her

spouse’s election.

In the opening paragraph of the argument section of the

brief filed in support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants

contend that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon

which can be granted because

Plaintiff effectively consented to her husband’s election

not to participate in The Automatic Post-Retirement

Surviving Spouse Option. She completed the Spouse’s Consent

section of the Election Form, she signed and dated the

Spouse’s Consent section, and she had the Spouse’s Consent

section notarized.

(Brief in support of motion to dismiss, p. 9) The Defendants

further represent in their motion to dismiss that

[t]here is no dispute that Plaintiff fully completed the

Spouse’s Consent section of the Election Form with the sole

omission of a check mark in a box adjacent to clarifying

statements about her choice. The “Spouse’s Consent,” on it

[sic] face, is unambiguous and susceptible to only one

interpretation – that Plaintiff intended to consent to her

husband’s election.

Case 4:06-cv-00007-MM Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 5
5

(Motion to Dismiss, p. 2, ¶3)

We are of the view that Colleen M. Snow did not complete the

Spouse’s Consent portion of the form. The most crucial

information -- an indication of her consent or lack of consent --

is not present. Under the circumstances of this case we do not

agree with the Defendants’ assertions that the form is “complete”

and that she thereby “effectively consented” to her spouse’s

choice with respect to The Automatic Post-Retirement Surviving

Spouse Option.

We will deny the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document 18) is denied.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

 MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:gja

Case 4:06-cv-00007-MM Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 5 of 5