Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.

Document Cited authorities (56) Cited in (23) Precedent Map Related
Decision Date16 July 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 07–2602–EFM.
CitationFulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090 (D. Kan. 2013)
PartiesWilliam Douglas FULGHUM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EMBARQ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Writing for the CourtERIC F. MELGREN
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Kansas

938 F.Supp.2d 1090

William Douglas FULGHUM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.EMBARQ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 07–2602–EFM.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Feb. 14, 2013.

Reconsideration Denied July 16, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alan M. Sandals, Scott Michael Lempert, Sandals & Associates, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Amii Castle, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, Kansas City, MO, Bruce Keplinger, Christopher J. Lucas, Norris & Keplinger, L.L.C., Overland Park, KS, Diane A. Nygaard, The Nygaard Law Firm, Mary C. O'Connell, R. Douglas Gentile, Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC, Leawood, KS, Richard T. Seymour, Adele Rapport, Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC, Washington, DC, Stewart W. Fisher, Jessica E. Leaven, Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, PA, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs.

D. Michelle Morlock, pro se.

Henry John Roehr, pro se.

Jack Bailey, pro se.

Veronica P. Crawley, pro se.

Eunice McNeal, pro se.

Amy Stettler pro se.

Shirley G. Hammock, pro se.

Eleanor E. Huston, pro se.

Vena Rogers, pro se.

Eleanor Wildhab–Daly, pro se.

Darlynn Muhlbach, pro se.

Annette E. Wantz, pro se.

Roger Dennis Hutchison, pro se.

Carolyn Kuklok, pro se.

Diane Phillips, pro se.

Hollis Phillips, pro se.

Mary Sharp Miller, pro se.

Leo Colabauth, pro se.

Valerie Kern, pro se.

Brian K. O'Bleness, Christopher J. Leopold, Mark D. Hinderks, Scott C. Hecht, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kansas City, MO, James P. Walsh, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Princeton, NJ, Joseph J. Costello, Michael L. Banks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher J. Koenigs, Michael B. Carroll, Sherman & Howard LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦                   ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦I. ¦Contractual Vesting Claims Under ERISA¦1098¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦A.¦The Parties                        ¦1098¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Named Plaintiffs                    ¦1098¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Company ¦1098 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦United Telephone Companies             ¦1098 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦Sprint                                 ¦1098 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Defendants                          ¦1099¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Class Members                       ¦1099¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦1099   ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'   ¦1100   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Contractual Vesting Claims (Docs. 323, 332)               ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Summary Judgment Legal Standard     ¦1100¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦ERISA Contractual Vesting Law       ¦1101¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Evidentiary Issues                  ¦1102¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Magistrate Judge O'Hara's Sanction Order          ¦1102   ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Course of Performance Evidence                    ¦1102   ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Report and      ¦1102   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Testimony of Prof. Gail Stygall (Doc. 321)        ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The SPDs                            ¦1103¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦The First Group of SPDs (1 through 6, 18 and 24   ¦1103   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦through 32)                                       ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in the SPDs           ¦1104¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦Language in SPDs 1 through 4              ¦1104  ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦Language in SPD 18                        ¦1104  ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(c)¦Language in SPDs 5 and 6                  ¦1104  ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(d)¦Language in SPDs 24 through 27 and 29     ¦1105  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦through 31                                ¦      ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(e)¦Language in SPDs 28 and 32                ¦1105  ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of the SPDs         ¦1105¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦The Second Group of SPDs (7 through 9) ¦1109 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1109¦
                +---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of SPDs 7, 8, and 9 ¦1110¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1110  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain termination provisions   ¦1112  ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦3. ¦Discussion of Named Plaintiff Britt's Claim   ¦1113  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(SPD 7 and the 1984 CBA)                      ¦      ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦c. ¦The Third Group of SPDs (10 through 12 and 19)¦1113  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1114¦
                +---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of these SPDs       ¦1114¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1115  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain a ROR clause and         ¦1116  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦termination provisions                    ¦      ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d. ¦The Fourth Group of SPDs (13 through 15 and 20    ¦1117   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦through 23)                                       ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1117¦
                +---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of these SPDs       ¦1118¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1118  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
                +----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain a ROR clause and         ¦1119  ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦termination provisions                    ¦      ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦e. ¦Named Plaintiff Clark's Claim (SPDs 16 and 17 and ¦1119   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦the 1974 CBA)                                     ¦       ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (In re in Retirees & Emps. of Sprint Corp.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 24, 2015
    ...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
  • Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 24, 2015
    ...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
  • Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 27, 2015
    ...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
  • Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • October 2, 2013
    ...to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally. Koch, 6 F.Supp.2d at 1209;Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1137–39 (D.Kan.2013). In its motion and memorandum, Martin Marietta does not cite or apply these standards from the court's local rules......
    • Get Started for Free
Add as a preferred source on Google