Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

September Ends Co., et al. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 17-3520 · judgment September 4, 2018


Dismissed · August 2, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., expressly makes corporate successors to a business liable for unpaid pension obligations in certain circumstances. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1369(b), 1384(b), 1398. In the decision below, however, the Sixth Circuit decided that a supplemental “federal common law of successor liability is necessary to promote fundamental ERISA policies in this case,” and therefore proceeded to enact additional rules. Pet. App. 24a. In doing so, it refused to adopt traditional state common law principles of successor liability as the federal rule, holding that courts may resort to state law only if pre-existing federal common law rules from other areas of the law are unavailable to fill the gap. The Sixth Circuit purported to find such a rule in this Court’s 1960s-era collective bargaining cases, which adopted a rule much broader than that provided by common law. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit followed a growing trend of treating the Court’s labor law cases as establishing a broad federal common law rule of successor liability for an expanding list of federal statutes. That decision conflicts with the law of other circuits and this Court’s repeated admonition that federal courts are not to create federal common law to rewrite federal statutes and that even when federal common law rules are authorized, they are to be filled by adopting state common law principles absent clear congressional direction to the contrary. The question presented is: What is the proper standard for successor liability for unpaid ERISA pension obligations?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Kevin K. Russell
Russell & Woofter LLC

For respondent
Charles Lester Finke
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
18A750

Proceedings

  1. Aug 02 2019
    Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
  2. Jul 31 2019
    Stipulation to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed.
  3. Jul 03 2019
    Brief of respondent Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in opposition filed.
  4. May 16 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 5, 2019.
  5. May 14 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 7, 2019 to July 5, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  6. May 08 2019
    Response Requested. (Due June 7, 2019)
  7. May 07 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
  8. Apr 30 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to respond filed.
  9. Apr 02 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 2, 2019)
  10. Feb 22 2019
    Application (18A750) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until April 4, 2019.
  11. Feb 21 2019
    Application (18A750) to extend further the time from March 5, 2019 to April 4, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
  12. Jan 20 2019
    Application (18A750) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until March 5, 2019.
  13. Jan 18 2019
    Application (18A750) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2019 to March 5, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.