Court Opinion

ID: 28555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:25:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:18.533102
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                           _____________________

                                No. 01-40904
                           _____________________

DERREL A. BAKER; ET AL.,
                                                                Plaintiffs,

DERREL A. BAKER; PHILIP H. BISHOP;
REBECCA DAVIS; TERRY EDWARDS; GAY
PATRICK; JOHN PERRIN; KIRDES SCHUBERT, JR.;
BETTY SHARPLIN; CAROL HERZIG, wife of
Darrell Herzig deceased,

                                                   Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                  versus

KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                        USDC No. 4:00-CV-103
_________________________________________________________________
                           August 15, 2002

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In this case, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any

competent evidence showing that, at the time they opted to take

early retirement, a merger between Oryx and Kerr-McGee was under

consideration or that any substantive discussion had occurred

between   the   parties.      Consequently,   no    duty   to   inform   the

     *
       Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
plaintiffs of the merger arose under ERISA, and the district court

properly granted summary judgment in favor of Kerr-McGee on the

plaintiffs’ ERISA claims.         In addition, we find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of the plaintiffs’ motions to compel

production of documents or their related motion for a continuance

under Fed.   R.   Civ.   P.   56(f).   Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is

                                                             AFFIRMED.