Opinion ID: 33223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: interfered with protected rights, engaged in

Text: Plaintiff and James Hatteberg were parties prohibited transactions, and committed vioto a contentious divorce in 1992. Among the lations of the Employee Retirement Income community property divided between them Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). were the assets owed to James Hatteberg un- der the Red Adair Profit Sharing Plan; Adair To “bring focus” to the case, the district Enterprises, Inc., was the plan administrator. court appointed two special masters with exIn 1992, a state court entered a qualified do- pert ise in the intricacies of ERISA law. The mestic relations order (“QDRO”) regarding masters produced reports helpful to the court James Hatteberg’s accrued benefits under the in its final determinations. Later, at the court’s plan. This first QDRO entitled plaintiff to a request, plaintiff and defendants filed respecsmall portion of the plan’s assets, so she ap- tive motions for summary judgment. The pealed. The method of calculation of her en- court found the bulk of plaintiff’s claims to be titlements remained a matter of dispute and deficient. litigation until 1997, when all parties reached a mediated settlement respecting the substance The court observed that the first claim, and general form of a final QDRO, recognizing based on alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. a larger entitlement for plaintiff. In 1998, § 1132’s requirement that plan administrators under a second QDRO obtained pursuant to supply certain information to beneficiaries, had the settlement, plaintiff was paid, from the merit. The court, however, in the absence of plan’s trust account, the amount owed her un- a federal limitations period for such a claim, der the settlement. applied the limitations period of an analogous Texas state law claim and found that plaintiff’s She was not completely satisfied, however. claim fell outside the two-year period. She sued the instant defendants in federal court, asserting claims arising from the prior The court also put aside plaintiff’s claims of dispute. The defendants include Adair Enter- breaches of fiduciary duty. She had argued prises, Inc. (hereinafter “Adair”), which was that the plan administrator breached its fiduciary duty to her in five ways: first, by failing to distribute the plan benefits to her on