Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sluimer v. Verity, Inc., 09-15128 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 09-15128 Visitors: 13
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Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010 MO LLY C. DW YER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO SLUIMER, No. 09-15128 Plaintiff -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
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                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAY 20 2010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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer