Hemphill v. Estate of Ryskamp

• Decision Date: 21 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. CV-F-05-1319 OWW/SMS.,CV-F-05-1319 OWW/SMS.
• Citation: 619 F.Supp.2d 954
• Parties: Trudy G. HEMPHILL, Plaintiff, v. Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF James J. RYSKAMP, Jr., et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

619 F.Supp.2d 954

Trudy G. HEMPHILL, Plaintiff, v. Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF James J. RYSKAMP, Jr., et al., Defendant.

No. CV-F-05-1319 OWW/SMS.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

March 21, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Clarissa A. Kang, Robert Frank Schwartz, Trucker Huss, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Donald Paul Lescoulie, Don Lescoulie Attorney at Law, Fresno, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (Doc. 65)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

On October 18, 2005, Plaintiff Trudy G. Hemphill filed a Complaint in this court and proceeds under a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against the Personal Representative of the Estate of James J. Ryskamp, Jr. (Ryskamp Estate); Ryskamp Inc.; Ryskamp Plan; James J. Ryskamp, Jr., M.D., Inc. Money Purchase Pension Plan ("Ryskamp MP Plan"); James J. Ryskamp, Jr., M.D., Inc. Profit Sharing Plan ("Ryskamp PS Plan"), and Judith Dickison Ryskamp, individually and as Trustee of the James J. Ryskamp, Jr. and Judith Dickison Ryskamp Living Trust ("Ryskamp Trust"). The SAC alleges in pertinent part:

9. Defendant Judith Dickison Ryskamp (`Mrs. Ryskamp') is an individual and surviving spouse of Ryskamp. Upon information and belief, Mrs. Ryskamp is a `party in interest,' within the meaning of ... ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(4). Upon information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that Mrs. Ryskamp was named in Ryskamp's Last Will and Testament as the executor of the Ryskamp Estate and that Mrs. Ryskamp has petitioned for appointment as the personal representative of the Ryskamp Estate from the California Superior Court for Fresno County in the probate of the Ryskamp Estate. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Ryskamp and Ryskamp had a revocable living trust for which Mrs. Ryskamp is the trustee. Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, that Mrs. Ryskamp was a beneficiary of Ryskamp's benefits under the Defendant Plans and received Ryskamp's benefits from the Defendant Plans following Ryskamp's death. Thus, Plaintiff sues Mrs. Ryskamp individually as well as in her capacity as the personal representative of the Ryskamp Estate and the trustee of the Ryskamp Trust.....

Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication in her favor on the First Claim for Relief for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), the Second Claim for Relief for benefits, to enforce her rights and clarify her rights pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), and the Fourth Claim for Relief for injunctive relief and nondisclosure penalties pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). Specifically, by this motion Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) compel the James J. Ryskamp, Jr., M.D.C, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan ("Ryskamp Plan") to provide an accounting of Plaintiff's benefits under the Ryskamp Plan and its predecessor plans; (2) order James J. Ryskamp, Jr., M.D., Inc. ("Ryskamp Inc."), as administrator of the Ryskamp Plan and its predecessor plans, to pay statutory penalties of $110 per day from September 3, 2003 to the date Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is granted; and (3) declare as to all defendants that Plaintiff has the right to receive certain plan documents and an accounting of all of her benefits.

Following the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication, the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs concerning the availability of declaratory relief against Mrs. Ryskamp because of the provisions of California Probate Code § 9351. All briefing is now complete.

A. Factual Background.

1. Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts.

In moving for summary judgment, Plaintiff sets forth the following facts as undisputed.

UMF No. 1. Plaintiff is a participant and beneficiary of the Ryskamp Plan.

Defendants denies this fact, referring to Paragraph 8 of the Declaration of Clarissa A. Kang, plaintiff's attorney, in support of the motion for summary adjudication. Paragraph 8 avers in pertinent part:

On July 26, 2006, Ryskamp Inc. served its Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. In response to Interrogatory Number 4, Ryskamp Inc. stated, `The amount of the benefits Plaintiff was entitled to are described in the QDRO and in the order of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno dated August 11, 1994 described in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was entitled to the benefits, as described in those orders, and Respondent is informed and believes the benefits were tendered to Plaintiff and Plaintiff never signed the forms required for distribution to her.'

Defendants focus on the term "entitled" in denying this fact. As will be discussed in more detail below, defendants assert that Plaintiff is not a participant or beneficiary of the Ryskamp Plan because her entitlement to benefits is time-barred.

UMF No. 2. The Ryskamp Plan is an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2).

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 3.

Plaintiff was a vested participant in the Ryskamp MP Plan, the Ryskamp PS Plan, and the Ryskamp-Pollock Pension and Profit Sharing Plan ("Ryskamp-Pollock Plan").

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 4. The Ryskamp MP Plan and the Ryskamp PS Plan merged into the Ryskamp-Pollock Plan in 1989.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 5. The Ryskamp-Pollock Plan terminated and its assets were transferred to the Ryskamp-Takayama 401(l) Profit Sharing Plan ("RT Plan") in 1994.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 6. The Ryskamp Plan was the successor plan to the RT Plan.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 7. The court in the marital dissolution proceeding between Plaintiff and James J. Ryskamp, Jr. ("Ryskamp") entered a Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order on August 11, 1994 ("Proposed QDRO").

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 8. The Proposed QDRO provided for the creation and assignment to Plaintiff, as an alternate payee, the right to $50,000 of Ryskamp's interest in the RT Plan.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 9. The Proposed QDRO also stated that Plaintiff would be entitled to all of the rights and election privileges afforded to active participants under the RT Plan.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 10. The Proposed QDRO required the RT Plan to provide Plaintiff with copies of all notices and information regarding her benefits under the RT Plan, including but not limited to annual reports, annual accounts, and any new or revised retirement booklets or bulletins.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 11. The court in the marital dissolution proceeding between Plaintiff and Ryskamp also entered another order on August 11, 1994 which confirmed Plaintiff's vested interests in the Ryskamp MP Plan, the Ryskamp MS Plan, and the Ryskamp-Pollock Plan ("Dissolution Order").

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 12. Plaintiff was entitled to the benefits described in the Proposed QDRO and the Dissolution Order.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 13. Ryskamp Inc. is the plan administrator of the RT Plan, the Ryskamp Plan, and their predecessors.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 14. On September 18, 1994, Ryskamp, as plan administrator and trustee of the RT Plan, certified the Proposed QDRO as a qualified domestic relations order and approved the distribution of benefits to Plaintiff in accordance with the Proposed QDRO.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 15. Ryskamp was the principal of Ryskamp Inc.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 16. On May 6, 1996, Plaintiff's accountant requested information from David N. Price, whose firm was the third party administrator for Ryskamp's benefit plans, regarding the whereabouts and amount of Plaintiff's benefits under the RT Plan, the Ryskamp PS Plan, and the Ryskamp-Pollock Plan.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 17. In response to the inquiry made by Plaintiff's accountant, Ryskamp and David N. Price failed to provide information regarding the then-current value of Plaintiff's benefits and documents by which Plaintiff could obtain a distribution of her benefits.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 18. On or before June 21, 2002, Plaintiff contacted Philip Price of Price Reinhardt Price to obtain account statements of her benefits in the Ryskamp Plan and information regarding the whereabouts and amount of her benefits under the Ryskamp Plan.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 19. While Philip Price provided some older account benefit statements (years 1999 and prior), he failed to give Plaintiff information about the current whereabouts and value of her benefits.¹

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 20. On June 21, 2002, Philip Price informed Ryskamp that Plaintiff had contacted Price for information needed to take a distribution of her benefits from the Ryskamp Plan, including account statements of her benefits, but Ryskamp did not make any efforts to contact Plaintiff with the information she needed.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 21. On August 4, 2003, Plaintiff sent a letter to Ryskamp in which she requested information sufficient to obtain a distribution of benefits from the Ryskamp Plan, including copies of annual statements of her benefits since 1990.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 22. Ryskamp failed to respond to Plaintiff's August 4, 2003 request.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 23. On November 24, 2003, the Ryskamp Plan acknowledged that Plaintiff was entitled to a distribution of vested benefits.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 24. On December 3, 2004, Plaintiff requested orally and in writing to Philip Price, copies of account statements of her benefits, summary annual reports, the current summary plan description and summary of material modifications, and the latest Form 5500 Annual Return/Reports for Ryskamp's retirement plans.

This fact is admitted.

UMF No. 25. Philip Price informed Ryskamp of Plaintiff's December 3, 2004 request and forwarded to Ryskamp a copy of Plaintiff's letter...