Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190715_0002435.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 05:28:12
Document Index: 699434766

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1787', '§ 1787', '§ 1787', '§ 1787', '§ 709', '§ 1787', '§ 1789']

FindACase™ | Perna v. Health One Credit Union
Perna v. Health One Credit Union
James M. Perna, Plaintiff,
Health One Credit Union, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [18]
Plaintiff, James Perna, brings this suit to enforce an arbitration award against his former employer, Defendant Health One Credit Union (“HOCU”), and the National Credit Union Administration Board, the federal agency that liquidated that credit union. Though state and federal law provides courts the authority to enforce arbitration agreements, the Federal Credit Union Act (“FCUA”), which governs this suit, severely limits that authority. Because the FCUA trumps conflicting provisions of state and federal arbitration law, Defendants will be granted summary judgment.
Mr. Perna began working for HOCU on January 16, 1971. (Compl. ¶ 7). His employment contract was repeatedly renewed over the course of the intervening years, and he eventually became the highest-ranking employee at HOCU. (August 27, 2018 Arbitration Hearing Tr., Dkt. 1-3, pg. 13).
On May 16, 2014, Annette Flood, the Director of the Office of Credit Unions for Michigan's Department of Insurance and Financial Services (“DIFS”), appointed the NCUA Board as the conservator of HOCU, pursuant to M.C.L. 490.241. (Dkt. 1-4, Ex. C). Director Flood based her decision on a confidential DIFS staff memorandum, and found that it was necessary to appoint a conservator “to conserve the credit union's assets, for the benefit of its members, depositors and other creditors.” (Id.). That same day, Mr. Perna was terminated by a letter signed by L.J. Blankenberger, “Agent for the Conservator, ” and the Director of Region 1 of the NCUA. The letter explained that Federal Credit Union Act provided the Conservator the right to repudiate any contract that is deemed burdensome and whose repudiation would promote the orderly administration of the credit union's affairs. (Dkt. 1-5, Ex. D (citing 12 U.S.C. § 1787(c))). Mr. Perna's employment contract was deemed by the conservator to be one such contract. (Id.).
Following his sudden termination, Mr. Perna filed for unpaid wages and fringe benefits with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Wage and Hours Program of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (“LARA”). The NCUA Board's counsel, in a December 5, 2014 letter to Katherine Woods, an investigator at LARA, asserted that “Mr. Perna's tenure as CEO was not successful and ultimately led to Health One's current financial predicament.” (Dkt. 18-6; Ex. 5). The letter also explained that the Federal Credit Union Act gives the NCUA, in capacity as conservator, the discretion to repudiate burdensome contracts is such repudiation “will promote the orderly administration of the credit union's affairs.” (Id. citing 12 U.S.C. § 1787(c)(1)). Mr. Perna's claims for expenses and vacation pay, the NCUA reasoned, were barred because the contracts on which those claims were based were repudiated (Id.). A January 29, 2015 letter from Ms. Woods explained that LARA was rejecting Mr. Perna's claim for fringe benefits because they were not allowed under the plain language of the employee handbook. (Dkt. 18-7, Ex. 6).
On July 1, 2015, Ms. Woods sent an amended letter finding that since Mr. Perna's employment agreement with HOCU contained an arbitration clause, LARA would take no further action in the case. (Dkt. 18-10, Ex. 9). “Resolution of this claim has been preempted by the contractual assent to arbitration by the American Arbitration Association for the issues being claimed.” (Id.).
Meanwhile, on May 14, 2015, Mr. Perna, through counsel, sent a letter to Conservator Blankenberger of the NCUA Board making claims for unpaid wages and fringe benefit pursuant to the severance agreement in his employment contract. (Dkt. 18-11, Ex. 6). The letter argued that since Mr. Perna was never apprised of time limits for filing claims under 12 U.S.C. § 1787, he was entitled to begin filing for an administrative claim pursuant to § 1787(b)(5). (Id.). On November 20, 2015, Mike Barton, President of the Asset Management and Assistance Center of the NCUA, denied Mr. Perna's claim as untimely. That letter cited NCUA Regulations § 709.6(a)(1) for the proposition that “failure to submit a written claim [against the liquidated credit union] within the time provided in the notice to creditors shall be deemed a waiver of said claim and the claimant shall have no further rights or remedies with respect to such claim.” (Dkt. 18-12, Ex. 11).
Mr. Perna's attorney responded to the November 20, 2015 denial letter with a December 9, 2015 letter where he argued that the Repudiation of Agreement and Termination of Employment notice that Mr. Perna was given never included a notice of the time to bring a claim regarding his employment contract. (Dkt. 18-13, Ex. 12). Mr. Barton denied the request for reconsideration, observing that the exception for denial of late claims outlined in 12 U.S.C. § 1787(b)(5)(C)(ii) does not apply where the claimant had notice that a liquidating agent had been appointed. (Dkt. 18-14, Ex. 13).
Mr. Perna then scheduled an arbitration with the American Association of Arbitrators (“AAA”). Neither representatives from HOCU nor from the NCUA Board made an appearance in the arbitration, however, even after the arbitrator sent them letters that the arbitration would be held in their absence. (Arb. Hr'g Tr. 6). Rob Robine, a trial attorney with the National Credit Union Administration, responded with an email to an AAA representative explaining that “the employment agreement containing the arbitration clause was repudiated pursuant to federal law, in connection with the conservatorship of Health One Credit Union.” (Dkt. 18-22, Def. Ex. 21). The email closed: “Please do not contact our office further regarding this arbitration.” (Id.). The arbitration hearing was held on August 27, 2018, without the presence of the Defendants or briefing on their behalf. (Arb. Hr'g Tr. 6). Plaintiff paid Defendants' share of the arbitration fee. (Id. at 8).
On October 12, 2018, Arbitrator Samuel McCargo issued an award for Mr. Perna and against HOCU in the amount of $315, 645.02. (Arbitration Award, Dkt. 1-3, Ex. 15). The Arbitrator observed that since his authority derived from the employment contract between HOCU and Mr. Perna, he would not decide the NCUA Board's obligations to Mr. Perna. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed his case on November 7, 2018 in Macomb County Circuit Court. Defendants removed the case to federal court on January 2, 2019 on the basis of the FCUA's grant of jurisdiction to civil suits in which the NCUA is a party. 12 U.S.C. § 1789(a)(2). [Dkt. # 1]. That same day, Defendants filed their Motion to Substitute Party [3]. After receiving further briefing from both parties, the Court, on April 2, 2019, granted in part and denied in part that motion, adding the NCUA Board as a party, but declining ...