Case Law Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.

Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.

Document Cited Authorities (56) Cited in (23) Related

938 F.Supp.2d 1090

William Douglas FULGHUM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.EMBARQ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 07–2602–EFM.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Feb. 14, 2013.

Reconsideration Denied July 16, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alan M. Sandals, Scott Michael Lempert, Sandals & Associates, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Amii Castle, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, Kansas City, MO, Bruce Keplinger, Christopher J. Lucas, Norris & Keplinger, L.L.C., Overland Park, KS, Diane A. Nygaard, The Nygaard Law Firm, Mary C. O'Connell, R. Douglas Gentile, Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC, Leawood, KS, Richard T. Seymour, Adele Rapport, Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC, Washington, DC, Stewart W. Fisher, Jessica E. Leaven, Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, PA, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs.

D. Michelle Morlock, pro se.

Henry John Roehr, pro se.

Jack Bailey, pro se.

Veronica P. Crawley, pro se.

Eunice McNeal, pro se.

Amy Stettler pro se.

Shirley G. Hammock, pro se.

Eleanor E. Huston, pro se.

Vena Rogers, pro se.

Eleanor Wildhab–Daly, pro se.

Darlynn Muhlbach, pro se.

Annette E. Wantz, pro se.

Roger Dennis Hutchison, pro se.

Carolyn Kuklok, pro se.

Diane Phillips, pro se.

Hollis Phillips, pro se.

Mary Sharp Miller, pro se.

Leo Colabauth, pro se.

Valerie Kern, pro se.

Brian K. O'Bleness, Christopher J. Leopold, Mark D. Hinderks, Scott C. Hecht, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kansas City, MO, James P. Walsh, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Princeton, NJ, Joseph J. Costello, Michael L. Banks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher J. Koenigs, Michael B. Carroll, Sherman & Howard LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Contractual Vesting Claims Under ERISA¦1098¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦The Parties                        ¦1098¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Named Plaintiffs                    ¦1098¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Company ¦1098 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦United Telephone Companies             ¦1098 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦Sprint                                 ¦1098 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Defendants                          ¦1099¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Class Members                       ¦1099¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦1099   ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'   ¦1100   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Contractual Vesting Claims (Docs. 323, 332)               ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Summary Judgment Legal Standard     ¦1100¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦ERISA Contractual Vesting Law       ¦1101¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Evidentiary Issues                  ¦1102¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Magistrate Judge O'Hara's Sanction Order          ¦1102   ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Course of Performance Evidence                    ¦1102   ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Report and      ¦1102   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Testimony of Prof. Gail Stygall (Doc. 321)        ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The SPDs                            ¦1103¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦The First Group of SPDs (1 through 6, 18 and 24   ¦1103   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦through 32)                                       ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in the SPDs           ¦1104¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦Language in SPDs 1 through 4              ¦1104  ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦Language in SPD 18                        ¦1104  ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(c)¦Language in SPDs 5 and 6                  ¦1104  ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(d)¦Language in SPDs 24 through 27 and 29     ¦1105  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦through 31                                ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(e)¦Language in SPDs 28 and 32                ¦1105  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of the SPDs         ¦1105¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦The Second Group of SPDs (7 through 9) ¦1109 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1109¦
+---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of SPDs 7, 8, and 9 ¦1110¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1110  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain termination provisions   ¦1112  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦3. ¦Discussion of Named Plaintiff Britt's Claim   ¦1113  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(SPD 7 and the 1984 CBA)                      ¦      ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦c. ¦The Third Group of SPDs (10 through 12 and 19)¦1113  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1114¦
+---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of these SPDs       ¦1114¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1115  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain a ROR clause and         ¦1116  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦termination provisions                    ¦      ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d. ¦The Fourth Group of SPDs (13 through 15 and 20    ¦1117   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦through 23)                                       ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Language in these SPDs         ¦1117¦
+---+---+--+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discussion of these SPDs       ¦1118¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(a)¦The SPDs do not contain affirmative,      ¦1118  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦lifetime language                         ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---+------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(b)¦The SPDs contain a ROR clause and         ¦1119  ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦termination provisions                    ¦      ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦e. ¦Named Plaintiff Clark's Claim (SPDs 16 and 17 and ¦1119   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦the 1974 CBA)                                     ¦       ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (In re in Retirees & Emps. of Sprint Corp.)
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2013
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
"...to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally. Koch, 6 F.Supp.2d at 1209;Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1137–39 (D.Kan.2013). In its motion and memorandum, Martin Marietta does not cite or apply these standards from the court's local rules..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2014
Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC
"...Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., CV-06-2704-PHX-JAT, 2009 WL 597211, at **9-10 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2009); see also Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1131 n.156 (D. Kan. 2013). The Court is aware of only two district court decisions beyond the context of this action that have explicitly ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (In re in Retirees & Emps. of Sprint Corp.)
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2015
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
"...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2013
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
"...to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally. Koch, 6 F.Supp.2d at 1209;Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1137–39 (D.Kan.2013). In its motion and memorandum, Martin Marietta does not cite or apply these standards from the court's local rules..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2014
Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC
"...Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., CV-06-2704-PHX-JAT, 2009 WL 597211, at **9-10 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2009); see also Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1131 n.156 (D. Kan. 2013). The Court is aware of only two district court decisions beyond the context of this action that have explicitly ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.