UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 

* 

Ricky C. McCarthy * 

* 

 Plaintiff * 

* 

 v. * Docket: Unknown 

* 

Pamela Taber-McCarthy * 

* 

 Defendant * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 

PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR REMOVAL 

NOW COMES the plaintiff, Ricky McCarthy, (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) by and 

through counsel, Walker & Buchholz, P.A., and respectfully submits the following 

Petition For Removal and in support thereof states as follows: 

1. On or about January 20, 2006, a Petition For Divorce was filed by the named 

defendant in this matter, Pamela Taber-McCarthy (hereinafter “defendant”). 

2. The plaintiff and defendant, through the use of their respective counsel, 

reached a lump sum settlement agreement with regard to the distribution of certain 

pension funds. The terms of the agreement were approved by the Hillsborough County 

Superior Court, Northern District (hereinafter “State Court”), which issued its order on or 

about April 30, 2007. 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

3. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, the defendant’s counsel (The 

Law Offices of Kathleen Sternenberg) was to draft the Qualified Domestic Relations 

Order (hereinafter “QDRO”) and take the necessary steps to perfect the transfer. 

4. Despite the parties’ express agreement, that the payment to be made to the 

defendant was to be a “lump sum”, the defendant now seeks the calculation of gains on 

the plaintiff’s retirement account in addition to the agreed to lump sum payment. 

5. The defendant, by way of counsel, filed pleadings with the state court a 

further order with regard to the wording of the QDRO, originally drafted by her counsel, 

to include unbagained for gains on plaintiff’s retirement account to be included in 

calculation of the payment to be made to her. Plaintiff objected to this request as it was 

not the agreement of the parties. Further, the issue raises the correct application of the 

provision of 29 USC§ 1056 et. seq. The defendant claims that she is entitled to gains on 

the portion of plaintiff’s retirement account, as a matter of law, regardless of the 

agreement of the parties or the terms of the plan. 

6. Under 29 USC § 1056 et. seq a plan administrator has 18 months in which to 

determine whether or not a proposed QDRO is in conformance with the statutory 

requirements and the terms of the plan. 

7. The 18 month period begins to run “with the date on which the first payment 

would be required to be made under the domestic relations order” 29 USC §1056 

(d)(3)(H)(v). 

8. During such period of time the plan administrator is required to keep the 

funds to be paid to the alternative payee as “segregated amounts” while it is being 

determined if the proposed QDRO meets the statutory and plan requirements. 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

9. The statute also expressly states that “[i]f within the 18-month period 

described in clause (v) the proposed order (or modification thereof) is determined to be a 

qualified domestic relations order, the plan administration shall pay the segregated 

amounts (including any interest thereon) to the person entitled thereto.” 29 USC § 1056 

(d)(3)(H)(v). The statute does not call for the payment of any profit or loss on the 

segregated amounts. The statute only requires the payment of interest if any, earned on 

the segregated amounts. 

10. The issue to be litigated directly raised a federal question as to the correction 

interpretation of 29 USC § 1056 et. seq and plaintiff deserves to have this matter litigated 

in the federal court. 

11. The Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire is the proper 

venue for this matter as the parties reside and/or do business in New Hampshire. 

12. In addition to the parties named herein, it is plaintiff’s position that the plan 

administrator should be given notice of and an opportunity to be heard on the issue, as the 

issue directly affects the rights and obligation of a plan administrator under the federal 

statute governing distribution of pension funds via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 

Despite requests to do so, the state court has failed to require notification to the plan 

administrator and has rescheduled a hearing on the federal question issue. 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

Respectfully submitted by, 

Ricky McCarthy 

By his attorneys, 

WALKER & BUCHHOLZ, P.A. 

Dated: March 13, 2008 By /s/ Kevin E. Buchholz, Esquire 

Kevin E. Buchholz, Esquire 

NH Bar# 6535 

50 Bridge Street, Suite 205 

Manchester, NH 03101-1699 

603-634-5090 

kbuchholz@walkerbuchholz.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition For Removal was this day 

forwarded to Kathleen Sternenberg, Esquire, Law Offices of Kathleen Sternenberg, 27 

Webster Street, Manchester, NH 03104 

Dated: March 13, 2008 /s/ Kevin E. Buchholz, Esquire 

Kevin E. Buchholz, Esquire 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/08 Page 4 of 4