Filed: May 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010 MO LLY C. DW YER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO SLUIMER, No. 09-15128 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01220-SI v. MEMORANDUM * VERITY, INC., a corporation; THE VERITY INC. CHANGE IN CONTROL AND SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010 MO LLY C. DW YER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO SLUIMER, No. 09-15128 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01220-SI v. MEMORANDUM * VERITY, INC., a corporation; THE VERITY INC. CHANGE IN CONTROL AND SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May ..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010
MO LLY C. DW YER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO SLUIMER, No. 09-15128
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01220-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
VERITY, INC., a corporation; THE
VERITY INC. CHANGE IN CONTROL
AND SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
We have affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Hugo
Sluimer in a separate published order. Sluimer v. Verity, No. 09-15128, slip. op.
(9th Cir. May 13, 2010). Verity raises the additional argument on appeal that the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
district court “exceeded its powers by re-writing” Verity’s release “to
accommodate Sluimer’s lawsuits.” We disagree. The district court simply
required Verity to make its standard release consistent with the district court’s
award of attorney’s fees, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), and its proper interpretation of
the Plan and Sluimer’s individually negotiated Participation Notice.
AFFIRMED.