Judy Ditchey v. Mechanics Bank, 3:15-cv-04103

Plaintiff Judy Ditchey is Executive VP and Director of Human Resources at Mechanics Bank and a participant in the Bank’s Change in Control Severance Plan.
The Plan (created 2008, amended 2014) provides severance for an "Involuntary Termination" during a defined Change in Control Period triggered by a 2015 change in ownership.
An "Involuntary Termination" includes, inter alia, a "material diminution" in responsibilities; the Plan requires written notice of such conditions within 90 days and gives the Bank 30 days to cure; if uncured, the participant is "deemed Terminated."
The Plan conditions receipt of severance on executing and delivering a nonrevocable general release within 30 days of "Termination."
Ditchey alleges that after the Change in Control her duties were materially diminished, she timely gave notice, the Bank failed to cure, and the Bank orally denied benefits; she sued under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to recover plan benefits; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ditchey is ineligible because she failed to deliver a release within 30 days	The 30‑day release deadline applies only after a "Termination" as defined in Exhibit A; the Bank did not cure the diminution, so she was deemed Terminated and entitled to severance	The release deadline runs from the occurrence of the alleged diminution; failure to execute the release within 30 days forfeits benefits	Court: Denied dismissal — Plan requires the release within 30 days of "Termination" as defined; defendants did not show as a matter of law that a "Termination" occurred
Whether Ditchey lacks Article III standing	Ditchey alleges an injury (denial of severance) traceable to defendants and redressable by award of benefits	Bank argues lack of standing because she did not sign the release	Court: Standing satisfied — Plaintiff alleged cognizable injury and potential redress; release issue is merits, not jurisdictional

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Fortyune v. Am. Multi–Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (standing requires injury in fact traceable to defendant and redressable)
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (court accepts complaint allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))