Van Zant v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KENT, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs claims under § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1140. 1 The Defendants also request the Court to award them attorney’s fees and other costs of suit. For the reasons stated below, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, their request for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED, and the Plaintiffs’ claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine…
2Cases cited18 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bodine v. Employers Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Washington v. Occidental Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1998
- Sibley v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Marks, Quitman County, MississippiDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2022
- Sibley v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Marks, Quitman County, MississippiDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2022
- Thomas v. AmazonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2025