Legal Opinion
Schendel v. Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Pension Plan
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 16, 1995No. C-93-20732 PVTPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER FOLLOWING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TRUMBULL, United States Magistrate Judge.
On October 25, 1994, plaintiffs and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing. Pursuant to court order, the parties submitted additional briefing. The motion came under submission on January 26, 1995.
Plaintiff Kenneth Schendel sued Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Pension Plan and the Trustees of the Plan [hereinafter collectively “defendants”] in an effort to obtain an additional 6.5 years of credit toward calculating his retirement benefits. The defendants denied Mr.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Salcedo v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
- Norris v. MazzolaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2017