Legal Opinion
Matlock v. Pitney-Bowes, Inc.
District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Decided November 17, 2010No. 1:08-CV-696PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge.
This is an action for retirement benefits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (“ERISA”). Defendants Pitney Bowes Inc. (“Pitney Bowes”) 1 and Pitney Bowes Inc. Employee Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”), move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 21.) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Mary Barker Matlock, administratrix of the estate of James Robert Barker, Jr. (“Barker”), and…
2Cases cited20 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
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Matlock v. PITNEY-BOWES, INC.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011