Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 17, 2021
No. 20-20641 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Medora Chetlin,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-1986
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Medora Chetlin filed this suit against Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation
(“Exxon”) after it denied her claim for her deceased ex-husband’s
retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641
1974 (“ERISA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Exxon. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I. Facts & Procedural History
Nathan Broussard was employed by Exxon from 1968 to March 1982.
He was enrolled in the Mobil Oil Retirement Annuity Plan. Broussard and
Chetlin were married the first six years that Broussard worked for Exxon and
divorced in 1974. As a result of the divorce proceedings, Chetlin was awarded
a community property interest in Broussard’s retirement plan with Exxon.
After Broussard left Exxon, the terms of the plan provided that he would be
entitled to a straight life annuity of $241.46 a month after his calculated
retirement date of January 1, 2008 plus his total contribution amount of
$280.68. The plan further provided that, in the event of his death prior to
January 1, 2008, Broussard’s designated beneficiary, Chetlin, would receive
his $280.68 contribution plus interest. Broussard passed away in February
2007, less than a year before his retirement date.
In November 2012, Exxon sent a letter to Chetlin informing her that
she was eligible for a refund of Broussard’s contribution plus interest. Chetlin
responded to Exxon twice requesting information about his contribution but
did not receive an immediate response. In August 2013, Exxon requested that
Chetlin complete and return a form for a contribution refund along with
Broussard’s death certificate. The parties then ceased communicating with
each other.
Approximately six years later in May 2019, Chetlin filed suit in state
court against Exxon claiming that she was wrongfully denied Broussard’s
retirement benefits. Exxon removed to federal court based on ERISA
preemption. Then in July 2019, Exxon sent Chetlin another letter denying
her request for any benefits exceeding those detailed in its November 2012
letter, explaining that she was only entitled to a refund of Broussard’s
2
Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641
contribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of
$3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to
Broussard’s contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of
death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that
would have provided her with a spouse’s benefit such as an annuity. The
letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits
determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed
this lawsuit.
Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not
the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies, and that its denial of benefits determination was supported by the
record and the terms of Broussard’s retirement plan. Chetlin responded that
the terms Exxon claimed were in effect during Broussard’s employment were
not and that the administrative record was likely incomplete.
The magistrate judge issued a memorandum and recommendation to
the district judge concluding that (1) Exxon was not the proper defendant and
Chetlin’s claims against it could be dismissed on that basis; (2) because it
took seven years for Exxon to provide Chetlin with the information and
documents she sought from the retirement plan and she had no other way to
obtain the information needed to make a formal claim for benefits, she was
excused on equitable grounds for failure to exhaust her administrative
remedies; and (3) Exxon’s determination that Chetlin was limited to a refund
of Broussard’s contribution plus interest was supported by the administrative
record and the terms of the retirement plan. On these grounds, the magistrate
judge recommended that Chetlin’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation, agreeing that the benefits decision was proper and
supported by the administrative record. The court declined to decide,
3
Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641
however, whether Exxon was the proper defendant on the basis that it was
not the only determinative issue in the proceedings. The court noted that
Chetlin’s claim that the record was incomplete failed because she had the
opportunity to further develop the record but had not done so. Accordingly,
because Chetlin failed to present any evidence beyond speculation as to the
accuracy of the plan’s terms, her claims could not survive summary
judgment. In light of this conclusion, the district court granted summary
judgment in favor of Exxon and held that Chetlin was only entitled to a refund
of Broussard’s contribution plus interest.1
II. Standard of Review
We review grants of summary judgment de novo. West v. City of
Houston, 960 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Petzold v. Rostollan, 946
F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 2019)). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Although the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, it may not rely on “conclusional allegations and
unsubstantiated assertions” as evidence. West, 960 F.3d at 740 (quoting
Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011)).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Chetlin asserts that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because (1) there was a material dispute as to whether
Exxon is the proper defendant; (2) the ERISA benefits determination was
1
As the district court noted, this amount totaled $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019 and
continues to accrue interest until Chetlin receives payment.
4
Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641
incorrect; and (3) the administrative record was incomplete. We are
unpersuaded by these arguments.
As a preliminary matter, the district court declined to hold whether
Exxon was the proper defendant in these proceedings because it could decide
the case on the basis that the benefits decision was correct and supported by
the administrative record. We agree with this reasoning. Although Chetlin
disagrees with the benefits decision here, she has failed to present evidence
negating its accuracy. She alleges that the record is “likely” incomplete but,
as the district court observed, she had ample time to develop the record prior
to summary judgment but failed to do so. Exxon provided Chetlin with a copy
of the retirement plan and an explanation of benefits available to Chetlin
based on Broussard’s contribution.2 Chetlin’s disagreement with Exxon’s
numbers is of no consequence because she provides no evidentiary support
for her claim that the benefits determination is incorrect. Rather, she merely
speculates that Exxon has not provided a complete and accurate record to
support its calculations. As the district court properly concluded, that is not
enough to survive summary judgment. See West, 960 F.3d at 740
(“[C]onclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be
relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party.”). The district court did not
err in granting summary judgment in favor of Exxon.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2
Chetlin argues that the retirement plan that Exxon provided from July 1982 may
not be the plan in place at the time of Broussard’s employment since he left Exxon in March
of 1982. As the district court points out, however, Chetlin had the opportunity to resolve
any discrepancies regarding the plan prior to summary judgment but failed to do so.
5