Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Danica Bulovic, Petitioner v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, et al.

Supreme Court briefFeb 10, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DANICA BULOVIC,

Petitioner

THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET CO. LLC

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKER'S

INTERNATIONAL UNION INDUSTRY PENSION

FUND FUTURE SERVICE PENSION PLAN,

P.O.BOX 6000 FRANKFORT, ILLINOIS 60423- 6000

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKER'S

1500 LOCAL INTERNATIONAL UNION AGENT

FOR SERVICE OF LEGAL PROCESS,425,MERRICK

AVENUE, WESTBURY, N.Y. 11590

Respondents

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT 16-3341 CV

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTORIARI

DANICA BULOVIC, pro se

325, Palmer Terrace, Apt.2C

Mamaroneck, N. Y. 10543

Phone No. (914) 630-2185

QUESTION PRESENTED

Question is: Whether United Food & Commercial Workers Internatonal Union Industry Pension Fund Future Service Pension Plan

("U.F.C.W. International Union Plan") violate:

Section 411 (d)(6) unti-cutback Rule of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986, as amended ("the Code"), 204 (g) of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,("ERISA") as amended, and Section

4022(a) of Title IV of ERISA a Plan Termination Insurance Program

"non- forfeitable" "individual accrued benefits determined under the

plan.Sec. 1.2 of the Plan, (1002(23)(A), 29 U.S.C. 1054(c)(3),

if U.F.C.W. International Union Plan permits U.F.C.W Local 1500

International Union Administrator discretion to provide or not provide particular form or type of protected benefits, under the Pension

Plan, at Normal Plan's retirement date 60, which Petitioner reached

in February 1997 when Private Employer Royal Ahold closed all it's

Supermarkets in Westchester County, N.Y.

Qualified plan is maintained by International Union under Collective Bargaining Agreements and section 1001 as part of Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, which Plan Petitioner

discovered and filed application for overdue benefit in October 2013.

"The term 'nonforfeitable' means a claim.., to that part of

a... benefit. which arises from participant's service, which is

unconditional. and which is legally enforceable against the plan

29 U.S.C. 1002(19),insured by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

The following facts are undisputed: On May 1, 1995 private employer

Royal Ahold, known as Stop & Shop pursuant to a collective bargained Agreements with First National Supermarket merged into multi employer defined plan covering employees represented by U.F.C.WLocal 1500 International Union. Benefits accrued under a merged

participating Plan are subject to the provisions of that Plan immediately before participation in the Plan. Payments of benefits are blocked,

based on previous Judgment for statutory violations for breaches of

fiduciary duty for failure to provide plan documents under sec.502. In

Duffy v, Brannen ,529 A 2d 643,Vt.1987 the court held that her claim

for statutory violation is not within the scope of state court jurisdiction. If Petitioner in the original action for pension plan documents

had not standing to sue under principles governing the federal court

see ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989), See also Marriage

of Oddino, 939 P.2d 1266 (Cal. 1997). Supreme Court may grant the

petition on certiorari, because "ERISA preempts any and all State

Laws in so far as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee

benefit plan" 29 U.S.C. 1144.

(i)

LIST OF PARTIES

DANICA BULOVIC, prose

Petitioner

THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET CO. LLC

1385, HANCOCK STREET, QUINCY, MA 02169

(Attorneys for Stop & Shop, Amy L. Ventry- Kagan,

Daniel Gomez-Sanches, Littler Mendelson P.C. 290

Broadhollow Road ,Suite 305, Melville, N.Y. 11747).

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKER'S

INTERNATIONAL UNION INDUSTRY PENSION

FUND FUTURE SERVICE PENSION PLAN, P.O.

Box 6000 Frankfort, Illinois 60423-6000, pro-se

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKER'S

1500 LOCAL INTERNATIONAL UNION

AGENT FOR SERVICE OF LEGAL PROCESS, 425,

Merrick Avenue, Westbury, N.Y. 11590.

Respondents

(ii)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO 26.1 OF THE FEDERAL

RULES OF APPELATE PROCEDURE

Appellee

Respondent The Stop & Shop

Supermarket Company LLC discloses that

it is a whollyown subsidiary of Ahold U.S.A.

Inc. of which Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize

N. V. is the parent entity. Koninklijke

Ahold Deihaize N. V. is a publicly traded

company (OTC QX: ADRNY; AMS: AD).

No other publicly

held corporation owns

10% or more of Appellee—Respondent's stock.

(iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION

(i)

LIST OF ALL PARTIES

(ii)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

(iii)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(vi)

APPEALS COURT DID NOT REVIEW PLAN

UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WORKED

DISTRICT COURT PUBLISHED ONLY A 20

PAGE OPINION DEVELOPING AS BASIS

FOR DISTRICT COURT DECISION

STATEMENT'-' Statutory provisions are involved—

DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN 29 U.S.C. (35)

PENSION BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1994---'-----'--' 6

PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT AND HOURS

WORKED FROM 1988 PLAN YEAR TO 2000

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PLANS

PENSION PLAN- INTERNATIONAL UNION

CONSTITUCION, ARTICLE 27

---'

YEARS OF VESTING SERVICE

NORMAL RETIREMENT PENSION

(iv)

--'--'-

COMMENCEMENT OF PENSION AFTER

NORMAL RETIREMENT DATE AND

RETROACTIVE PAYMENT

BINDING EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING AGREEMENTS

LOCAL 1500 INTERNATIONAL UNION ASSERTS

"THAT SPD 2013 DO NOT GOVERN THEIR FUND" 14

REFORM ACT OF 1986 ("TRA 86" PUBLIC. LAW

99-514 1113 (e)(11) AND INTERNAL REVENUE

MANUAL DATED 05/04/2001

SECTION 1144(a) PREEMPTS STATE REGULATION

THAT "REGULATE ERISA PENSION PLAN"

PURPOSE OF TITLE III OF LABOR MANAGEMENT

RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, "LMRA" AS AMENDED-- 18

ACCRUED BENEFIT

FACTUAL BACKGROUND- MERGER SINGLE

EMPLOYER INTO MULTI EMPLOYER PLAN - 21

STOP & SHOP WAS ACTING AS EMPLOYER AND

IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY

STATUTORY ANTI-ALIENATION PROVISION

ERISA 1056 (d) (1) AND FIDUCIARY VIOLATION

OF SECTION 411, 29 U.S.C.. par. 1109 (a).

ERISA 502 (1) (B) BENEFIT CLAIM

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT MAKE

DECISION ON PETITIONER'S PENSION CLAIM

(v)

SMALL BUSINESS JOB PROTECTION ACT SBJPA

IMPOSED 5 YEAR VESTING ON COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING PLANS TERMINATED AND

EXISTING BEFORE AUGUST 20, 1996

MULTI EMPLOYER PLANS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE,AND FEDERAL TAX POWER,

29 U.S.C. 1001

ACCRUALS AND TERMINATION OF INSURANCE

PROGRAM

DISTINCTION BETWEEN BENEFIT ACCRUAL

AND VESTING- 204 CENTRAL LABORER'S FUND

STANDING UNDER 'ERISA' SEC. 502 (a)

RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS RULE UNDER

FUTURE SERVICE PENSION CREDIT EARNED

AFTER 1984

PLAN TERMINATION INSURANCE

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Aetna Health Inc. v, Davila, 542 U.S. 2000 (2004)

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S..650

Allessi v,Raybestos-Manhatt,Inc, 451 U.S. 504

(1981)

(vi)

Page

'-- (i)

Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997)

'--- 18

California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v.

Dillingham Constr.,NA, 519 U.S. 316 (1997)'--- 16

Central Laborer's Pension Fund v. Heinz 748,

124 s.c 2230, 159 L Ed. 2d 46 (2004)-'-"-"- 13

Columbia v. Greater Wash.Bd of Trade,506

U.S 125, 128, 129, 133 (1992).

De Buono v, NYSA-ILA Med. & Clinical Servs.

Fund, 520 U.S. 806, 814-815 (1997)

-"- 16

-- 17

Egelhoffv. Egeihoff, 532 U.S. 141

Esden v. Bank of Boston, 5 F. Supp.2d 214 (1998)--"-"- 22

Fort Halifax Packing Co. v.Coyne 482 U.S. 1

(1987)

37 17

Hein v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

889 F. 3d 210 (3rd Cir. 1996, cert.denied

519 U.S. 1056 (1997)

-'---- 5

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson

525 U.S. 432 (1999)-

--"-

Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133

(1990)

Lindsay v. Thiokol Corp. 112 F.3d 1068

(1997)

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink 517 U.S., 882, 887

(1996)'-"

(vii)

5, 16

--'-'-- 22

Kaiser Steel Corp. 455 U,S. 76-79

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc.,

486 U.S.825 (1988)

-- 16

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts—

'"-"17

Massachusetts Life Ins.Co. VRussell 473 U.S.

134,148 (1985)

- 17.5

Nachman Corp, 446 U.S. 375

---'5

New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue

Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co, 514 U.S. 645

(1995)

ONEOK, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc, 135 S Ct. 1591 (2015)

56,61-62 (2007) -----------------------------------5

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 236

(1947)

Shaw v Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85

(1983)

--- 17

Spacek v. Matitime Assoc.

134 F. 3d, 283 (5th Cir. 1998)

'----- 20

Travelers 514 U.S. at 655, 656

---- 16

United States v. Locke, 529 U.S 89, 109 (2000)-----'----- 17

22,19

Varity Corp. 516U.5.at

(viii)

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS:

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-16 645 (b)(2),115 Stat 38

EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT

OF 1974,Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (29 U.S.C. 1001

et 29 USC 1104(a)(1)(D)

Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 401

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947,

(LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. 185

29 U.S.C. 185 (301)

Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280

Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 ("SBJPA")

Public Pub.L. 104-188, 110 Stat.1755 (1996)

1994 Amendment, Pub. L. 103-465 no reduction in

accrued benefits

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

U.S. Court of Appeals For Second Circuit 16 CV3341 : October 5, 2017; and December 14, 2017.

APPENDIX B.

U. S. District Court SDNY 12cv 4758 docket 33 was

electronically filed on April 3, 2014 by SDNY,

as a Proof that the Case was for the Breach of Fiduciary's duty to provide plan documents under Bargaining contracts "which do not exist, under Affidavit

of Administrator of UFCW Local 1500 Union."

APPENDIX C

US District Court SDNY 12cv4758 docket 32 was

filed on March 31,2014and published only 20 page

of opinion developments out of 52 page, enclosed.

APPENDIX D

Motion for pension benefit under discovered International Union Pension Summary Plan Description Case

16 cv 4737 , October 7, 2016 and November 17, 2016.

was Dismissed on October 7,2016 without due process

APPENDIX E

Transcripts of SDNY 12ev 4758, January 18, 2013 and

April 17, 2013 are enclosed, as a proof that this Case

was for Statutory violation of ERISA.

APPENDIX F

Summary Pension Plan Description of UFCW International Union-Future Service Pension Plan.

APPENDIX G Pension Application.

APPENDIX H Collective Bargaining Agreements

A&P-Waldbaums Local 338 with Stop & Shop.

APPENDIX I

Constitution of UFCW International Union.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgment below

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States court of appeals is not reported and

Appears at Appendix A to the petition.

The opinion of the United States district court is reported at14 F Supp

3d on March 31, 2014 only 20 page opinion developing,

but ultimately rejected the best argument for her position and it was

base for their Judgment." Appeals Court remarks.

(See 52 pages Appendix C)

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided case was

October 5, 2017.

A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United State Court of

Appeals on the following date: December 14, 2017, and the copy of the order

denying rehearing appears at Appendix A

Present: GUIDO CALABRESI,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuits Judges,

JED S. RAKOFF, DISTRICT Judge, sitting by designation.

The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

APPEALS COURT DID NOT REVIEW

PLAN UNDER WHICH BULOVIC WORKED

In October, 2013 Bulovic discovered and received Pension Plan from

UFCW International Union and applied for Pension benefit which is

processed and blocked payments, based on District Court Order dated

March 31, 2014, for Administrator for refusal of plan documents.

International Union Fund maintains defined pension plan, Sec. 3(2)

of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended 29 U.S.C. 1002(2), which plan (i) provides retirement income to

employees or (ii) result in a deferral of income by employees for period extending to the termination of covered employment.

Summary Plan Description on page 7. explains: "Under ERISA Fedeera! Law you must have at least five years of vesting service to earn

a "non-forfeitable" right to a pension under Future Service Plan that

cannot be taken from you".

Because Future Service Plan have not began payments of benefit

under the Plan, on June 16, 2016 Bulovic filled Motion under Section

502((a)(1)(B of ERISA,, 29 U.S.C. 1132 (a)(1)(B) and Title III Sec.301

of Labor Management Relation Act, Pension Bill of Rights Act of Oct.

6, 1994 S 2531 (103) for pension benefit, at normal plan's retirement

age, under ERISA defined (35) discovered International Union plan,

which motion District Court dismissed on September 7,2016 without

due process. Bulovic's timely, motion for reconsideration denied on

Nov. 17, 2016. as they wrote "Bulovic was neither "participant" nor

"beneficiary" under ERISA. "Bulovic asserts that Stop & Shop

"operated under the names: 1. The First National Supermarket,

2. Finast, d.b.a.Edwards, 3. Stop & Shop 4. Waldbaum's" They wrote:

"There were breaks in Bulovic employment when she worked for

employers who did not contributed to the pension Fund, thereby making Bulovic ineligible to receive pension benefit.

This is wrong. Bulovic worked without break in Service for 12

plan years for Stop & Shop who is participant in Future Service

Plan. Stop & Shop operated under the above names and bought

Waldbaum's Store and converted it into Stop & Shop Supermarket.

Bulovic worked under Collective Bargaining Agreements effective

June 18, 1988 between Single Employer Royal Ahold, known as The

First National Supermarkets, Inc. as employer and UFCW International Union, which employer merged on May 1, 1995 into multiemployer Future Service Plan, with Reciprocity Agreement effective January 1, 1989. See page 62 of SPD, New England UFCW and Emplo2.

yers Pension Fund. First National Supermarket and Stop & Shop

paid Bulovic's wages to April 1,1998 when Bulovic earned 10 years

of Pension Service at age 61. See: page 7. Social Security Report of

Bulovic's employment. Normal Pension Plan's retirement age Go

was effective after 1988 and advertized in Union News-paper.

On Oct. 5, 2017,Appeals Court wrote: "District Court denied Bulovic's

motion for reconsideration on Nov. 17, 2016, under Sec. 502 of ERISA,

and Pension Plan under which Bulovic worked.

In 2012, Bulovic sued the United Food & Commercial Workers Local

Union, affiliated with International Union, Bruce Both, Agent for Service of Legal Process of UFCW Local 1500 Union for Plan documents.

"Bulovic contends that the present case is distinct from her earlier activity because in that case she was not actually attempting to claim

her pension benefits.Instead, she says, she was only alleging breach of

fiduciary duty of Local Union Administrator for refusal to provide relevant pension plan documents under section 502.

The District Court in Bulovic I construed her Complaint as asserting

her action under section 104(b) of the Employee Security Act of 1974

("ERISA"), and challenging the Administrator's refusal of plan documents under collective bargaining agreements.

District Court concluded that Bulovic lack standing to assert this Claim because she was neither a "participant" nor a "beneficiary" under

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001,

ERISA and on March 31,2014, after 22 months, District Court under

deposition testimony of Bruce Both,Agent for Service of Legal Process

of Local 1500 Union granted Summary Judgment to Administrator.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)4 Motion does not give the Appeals Court jurisdiction to Review that order. District Court filed Notice

of Appeal after entry of Judgment". Appeals Court did not review

New Discovered Pension plan, under which Bulovic worked".

Federal Appeals Court wrote: "Bulovic can prevail only by demonstrating she met one of her pension plan's criteria for vesting in Bulovic I;

She earned her benefits while employed with The First National Supermarket, which in turn was owned by Stop & Shop Supermarket.

Stop & Shop was contributed money to United Food & Commercial

Worker International Union Pension Fund on behalf of The First

National Supermarket Inc. employees, including Bulovic Id. At 367.

"District Court published a twenty Page Opinion developing,

but ultimately rejecting the best argument for her position;"

This 20 pages was basis for the District court's decision in

Bulovic I.

Appeal Court remarks). App. C, 52 pages enclosed.

Pro-se Petitioner Danica Bulovic Brings this Action under

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ERISA 1001(a)b Sec. 502(a), 29 U.S.C. 1132 and Title

III Sec.301of Labor Management Relation Act. Pension Bill of

Rights Act of October 6, 1994, S.2531.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED

STATEMENT

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., is designed to "protect the interest of participants in employee benefit plan and their beneficiaries by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility,

and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and

by providing for a appropriate remedies, sanctions and ready

access to the Federal courts." 29 U.S. C 1001(b).The statute

governs both pension plans and "employee welfare benefit plans" ERISA requires every plan to be established and maintained pursuant to written instrument and to have named fiduciaries who have authority to control and manage the administration of the plan and its assets 29 U.S.C.1102 (a) (1), 1103(a).

With specified exceptions, ERISA preempts" any and all State

laws insofar as they relate to any employee benefit plan" 29

U.S.C. 1144 (a). The Secretary has authority to investigate plans for ERISA violations by inspecting plan documents, administrative, and claims records. 29 U.S.C. 1134. ERISA also

authorizes the Secretary "to undertake research and surveys

and in connection therewith to collect, compile, analyze and publish date, information relating to employee benefit plans."

29 U.S.C. 1143 (a)(1).

1.Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(ERISA ) 29 U.S.C.1001 pension plans are classified as either

"defined contributions plans" or "defined benefit Plans" under

Title III of ERISA.A "defined contribution plan" 29 U.S.C. 1002

(34) provides" an individual account for each participant", and

benefits are "based solely upon the amount contributed" to the

account by the participant and his employer. Under such a plan '[t]he employee bears the investment risks and the employer does not guarantee a retirement benefit to the employee".

61-62 (3rd Cir. 2007). The Plan Termination Insurance

provisions of ERISA do not apply to such plan 29 U.S.C.

1321 (b) (1).

A "defined benefit plan", is other type of pension pian.29

U.S.C. (35}. Under a defined benefit plan, the Participant is

entitled to benefit upon retirement, and the "employer's

contribution (in this case Stop & Shop contribution), is adjusted to whatever level is necessary to provide those benefits "

Nachman Corp. v. PBGC, 446 U.S.359, 364 n.5 (1980).

Such a Plan "consists of general pool of assets rather than

individual dedicated accounts." Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432,439 (1999).Under such a plan "members

have a right to a defined level of benefits, known as 'accrued

benefit." The Plan Termination insurance provisions of

ERISA apply to Defined benefit Plan.

One of ERISA 's primary purposes is to "protect contractually defined benefits" Massachusetts Mut.Life Ins Co. v. Russell,473 U.S. 134,148 (1985) Congress wanted to make sure

that if worker has been promised defined pension benefit upon retirement and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions

are required to obtain a vested benefit he actually. will

receive it. "Nachman Corp". 446 U. S. at 375.

ERISA furthers that goal through its non-forfeiture and

Actual equivalence provisions. First, the statute provides

that in define benefit plan an employee's benefits must vest

no later than as provided under the applicable statutory

vesting schedule. 29 U.S.C. 1053 (a) (2000 & Supp.V 2005).

When employee's benefit vest, the "employee's right to his

normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable", and, if the employee leaves his employment before normal retirement age,

he is entitled to the benefit he has accrued up to that point.

Second, ERISA ensures that, if a participant retires after his

pension benefits have vested but before normal retirement

age,he is not penalized for that choice. The statute defines a

participant's" accrued benefit" as his "accrued benefit determined under the plan and except as provided in section

1054 (c) (3) of [Title 291, expressed in form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age," i.e.,an annuity

payable at retirement. 29 U.S.C. 1002 (23)(A), ERISA then

specifies that, if a participant retires early, his "accrued benefit" shall be the actuarial equivalent of annuity commencing at normal retirement age 29 U.S.C.1054 (c) (3).. ERISA's

non-forfeture are mirrored in the Internal Revenue Code 26

U.S.-C. 401 et seq. See 26 U.S.C. 411 (a)(2), 411 (3). The Secretary of the Treasure has rule-making authority concerning ERISA's benefit accrual and vesting provisions. Reorganization Plan No.4 of 1978, 3 C.F.R. 332 101 a) (1979);

See also 29 U.S.C. 1202 (adopting Secretary's regulations

to implement ERISA); 29 C.F.R. 2530.200a-2 (same).

"PENSION BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1994",

103 Congress 2nd Sss. S2531, on October 6, 1994

amended ERISA of 1974 to improve the pension

TITLE III- EFECTIVE DATES

SEC. 301 Effective Dates:

The Amendment made by this Act shall apply to

plan years beginning after December 31, 1994.

Special Rule for Collective Bargained Plans.

In the case of a plan maintained pursuant to one or more

Collective Bargained Agreements ratified on or before date

of the enactment of this Act, the amendments made by

this Act shall apply to the first plan year beginning on

or after the earlier of(1) the later ofJanuary 1, 1995, or

the date on which the last such collective bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard

to any extension thereof after the date of the enactment of

this Act)

(2)

January 1, 1997.

Petitioner's employment and hours worked for First National

Supermarket and Stop & Shop International Union Pension

Fund. Participation began on January 1, 1989. under Collective Bargaining Agreement effective June 18, 1988

PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT COVERED FICA

Earnings with First National Supermarket —FINAST

Stop & Shop Company Inc. EIN Employer ID number

Year Hours Plan Year E I N No Company

07/1-06/30

570 1988/89 041313020 FINAST- First Natio1,055 1989/90 041313020 Supermarket, Inc. a

2,250 1990/91 041313020 Corporation existing

2,023 1991/92 041313020 under the laws of the

2,019 1992/93 041313020 Massachusetts, Empi2,382 1993/94 041313020 oyer and UFCW and

2,065 1994/95 041313020 Local 1500 Internati8

2,031 1995/96 041313020 onal Union under "N

2,190 1996/97 041313020 LR Act"Sec. 9 (c), and

043008884 Stop &Shop-Local 1500

1,692 1997/98 043008884 Stop & Shop-Successor

1,407 1998/99 111448599 Stop & Shop-Local 338

1,508 1999/20 131890974 A&P Co. -Local 338

First National Supermarket 041313020 and Stop & Shop

Co.04300888 EIN Numbers. Lay-off Covered Benefit Plan

extended to April,1 1998. Termination of Single-Employer

Plan, 29 CFR 2530.200b-3).

COLLECTIVE BARGAINED PLANS, 26 U.S. CODE 413

(a) Application of subsection (b) applies to(1)a plan maintained pursuant to an agreement which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a collective- bargaining agreement

between employee representatives and one or more employers,

and (1)each trust which is part of such plan,

(b) General Rule If this subsection applies to the Plan,

notwithstanding any other provision of this

PARTICIPATION Section 410 shall be applied as if all employees of each of employers who are parties of the collective-bargaining agreement and who are subject to the same benefit computation formula under the plan were employed by a single

employer.

DISCRIMINATION, ETC, Section 401(A)(4) and 411(d)(3)

shall be applied as if all participant who are subject to the same

benefit computation formula and who are employed by employers who are parties to the collective bargaining agreement were

employed by a single employer.

EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT For purposes of section 401(a), in

determining whether the plan of employer is for the exclusive

benefit of his employees and their beneficiaries, all plan participants shall be considered to be his employees.

(4)VESTING Section 411 (other than subsection (d)(3) shall be

applied as if all employers who have been parties to the collective bargaining agreement constituted a single employer.

(5)FUNDING The minimum funding standard provided by section 412 shall be determined as if all participants in the plan were employed by a single employer.

(6)LI4,BILITIES FOR FUNDING TAX For a plan year liability under section 4971 of each Employer who is a party to the collective bargained Agreement shall be determined in a reasonable manner not inconsistent with regulations prescribed by the

Secretary- first on the basis of their respective delinquencies in

meeting required employer contributions under the plan, and

then on the basis of their respective liabilities for contributions

under the plan. For the purpose of this subsection and the last

sentence of section 4971 (e).[1] an employer's withdrawal liability under part I of subtitle E of title IV of ERISA of 1974 shall

not be treated as A liability for contributions under the plan.

(7)DEDUCTION LIMITATIONS Each applicable limitations

provided by section 404(a)shall be determined as if all participants in the plan were employed by a single employer.

ARTICLE 27

Pension Plan

the International Union, its chartered

bodies, and,to the extent applicable, affiliated funds

shall maintain the pension plan and trust known as

the "United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Pension Plan for Employees" and any

spinoff or successor plans and trusts, covering eligible officers and employees of the International Union, its chartered bodies, and any participating affiliated funds. The International Union shall maintained the pension plan and trust known as the "United Food and Commercial Workers International

Union Pension Plan for Canadian Employees",

covering eligible officers and employees of the Internatiional Union and its chartered bodies. Hereinafterin this Article and Article 28, the pension plan

and trust described in this paragraph will be referred to as 'the Plan" or "the Plans".

The Plan shall be funded (1 ) by the

contributions of the Plans' participants as may be

provided for in the Plan documents, (2) is applicable, by contributions of the participating affiliated

funds on behalf of their participating employees,

and (3) by allocation of such portion of the International per capita tax and other additional employer contributions as may be necessary to fund the

pension benefits provided for in the Plans. The

amount of such per capita tax allocation and additional employer contributions shall be determined

by the International Executive Board after consulltation with the Plans' actuaries. No contributions

of International Union, its chartered bodies or participating affiliated fund may revert to them except upon satisfaction of all the applicable Plan's

YEARS OF VESTING SERVICE

Becoming a Vested Participant

When you are vested Participant you have earned

non-forfeitable right to a pension under the Future Service Plan that cannot be taken away from

you. There are two different ways to become a vested Participant under the Future Service;

You must have at least five years of Vesting

Service; or

You must terminate Covered Employment

on or after your Norma]. Retirement Date

Pension Distribution Vesting Requirements

Vesting is a right to receive some form of benefit

when you leave Covered Employment. If You are

vested, you cannot lose your right to your accrued

benefits.

Counting Service under a Reciprocity

Agreement

In determined your Vesting Service, The Future

Service Plan will also count contributory service in

accordance with the terms of a Reciprocity Agreement with another plan, provided that the service

has not been cancelled by a Permanent Break in

Service before the effective date of the reciprocity

Agreement. However, Future Service Pension Credit earn after June 30, 1984 that would otherwise be

lost due to Permanent Break in Service can be reinstated by credit recognized under the terms of a

Reciprocity Agreement. See page 6. Reciprocity

Agreement.

NORMAL RETIREMENT PENSION

Eligibility

You will be eligible for a Normal Retirement Pension payable at your Normal retirement Date.

(generally on or after age 65) if you become a vested Participant under either of the provisions described on Page 5.

Calculation of Benefits

The amount of your Normal Retirement Pension

under the Future Service Plan is the sum of your

Unit Benefit Value earned for each Plan Year of

participation under the Future Service Plan.If you

have earned a benefit under the Prior Plan, the

benefit under both the Future Service Plan and

the Prior Plan will be combined, subject to the maximum Prior Plan Pension Credit limitations, described on Page 2.

Unit Benefit Value

For each year of Pension Credit earned under the

Future Service Plan, there will be a Unit Benefit

Value. The Unit Benefits Value is the monthly pension benefit earned in a Plan year, based on the

Employer contribution required to be made on

your behalf and AUCR for your Benefit Group. For

some periods, separate A U C R s apply to those

Participants who began participating in the Plan

before September 1, 2005 and those first participating in the Plan before September 1, 2005. See

Appendix C for a listing of AUCR by time period

and group.

Commencement of Pension after Normal

Retirement Date

If you have retired, but chose to delay receiving

your benefit until after Normal retirement date,

and you do not work in Prohibited Employment

after your Normal retirement Date, you are eligible to receive an adjusted benefit to take into account the later commencement of your benefit retroactively to your Normal Retirement Date.

Retroactive Payment

If your Pension begin after you Normal retirement

date and you are not working in Prohibited Employment, instead of receiving an actuarially adjusted benefit for periods you were not working in Prohibited employment, you may elect to receive your

accrued benefit determined as of a "retroactive annuity starting date." This means that for periods

you were not working in Prohibited Employment,

you will receive a lump sum for the pension payments that you would have received if you had retired and applied for a pension as of the later of

your Normal Retirement date or the end of your

Prohibited Employment, plus payments of interest

for each complete calendar month your pension payment were delayed. The interest will be based on

the short-term investment fund (known as the

STIF) rate used by the Fund's custodial bank, as

determined on the first day of the Plan Year in

which your pension payment is made.

To receive your pension based on a retroactive

annuity starting date, your spouse must consent

to this election if you are married when you make

the election.

BINDING EFFECT OF COLLECTIVEBARGAINING CONTRACTS.

Sec. 10 The Bill, as introduced on the House

Floor (92) Congress, Rec. 765)

"All collective-bargains contracts shall be mutually and equally binding and force able against each of the parties thereto, any other law

to the contrary notwithstanding. In the event

of a breach of any, such contract or any agreement contained in such contract by either party thereto, then, in addition to any other remedy or remedies existing, a suit for damages for

such breach may be maintained by the other

party or parties in court having jurisdiction of

the parties".

502 (e) grants federal courts "exclusive jurisdiction" over ERISA actions 29 U.S.C. 1132(e).

Prevent state court from hearing suits that

"involve application of the title I provision," i.e.,

the provisions of ERISA. H.R. No. 93-12-1280,

reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5038, 5107.Federal courts were gwen exclusive jurisdiction

over "action to enforce or clarify benefit rights

provided under Title I".

As Congress explained in the Conference Report on ERISA that a sentence in the Report states that suite seeking the enforcement of

plan terms "aris[e] under the Laws of the United States in a similar fashion to those brought under section 301 of the [LMRA]." U.S.

Br. 15 n.4. That sentence merely means that

federal courts have federal question jurisdiction to hear suits that seek the enforcement

of plan terms, not that state courts can hear

suits to enforce ERISA provisions.

For example, the Government quotes language

from Central Laborers Pension, Fund v. Heinz,

541 U.S. 739, 750 (2004), to the effect that ERISA's anti-cutback rule over rides contrary plan

terms and effectively "adds a mandatory terms

to all retirements packages.

The Government also notes that ERISA 404

(a)(1)(D) requires plan administrators to follow

provisions of ERISA if those provisions conflict

with the terms of the plan U.S. Br10-11. See:

Oddino v. Oddino the Government advocated

Petitioners' interpretation of 502(a)(1)(B) arguing that where a plaintiff seeks "to enforce a

provision of ERISA.

"ERISA "vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Courts." 1997 WL 33559420" *21 (U.S. Br.

Jan. 16,1997); See also id. At * 22- 23 (arguing

that in an "action to enforce a provision of

exclusively in Federal

ERISA, jurisdiction

Court. ').

The Board of Trustees of International Union established an Appeals Committee to review pension applications, which Committee processed petitioner's Application and withheld

payments of benefit based on District's Court's

Summary Judgment in favor of Local Union,

Administrator, based on his Affidavit without

documentary support. This action was for refusal to provide pension plan documents, statutory violation of ERISA.

On page 52. of Court's Order UFCW fiduciary

asserted that International Pension Fund is "a

completely separate legal entity than his Local

pension Fund",and Section of a July 2013 Summary Plan Description issued by International

Union "do not govern the terms of Local Union

Fund". Dkt. 27 and Dkt. 30. Court's Judgment

is arising from the Fraud and Misrepresentation of the Fact and Federal Law.

To qualify for favorable tax treatment, a retirement plan

must meet certain standard including:

not discriminatory coverage of employees;

minimum vesting requirements;

minimum distribution requirements;

nondiscriminatory distributions and benefit;

accruals and termination insurance program;

ERISA created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") to provide Federal Insurance Program that

insures participants against the loss of benefits and employee's right to his normal retirement benefit ERISA 3(23),

29 U. S.C. 1002(23)(A) State is preempted State law if

that law actually conflict with federal Law. See IngersollRand 498 Stat. 133, (1990).

(a common Law wrongful discharge claim), that employer discriminated against an employee to prevent to accru

al of benefit or receipt of pension).See: also Lindsay v. Thiokol Corp. See also Minimum vesting standard 26 U.S.C.

411,Elimination of special vesting Rule for multiemployers

plan, effective for plan years commencing after 1988. Tax

Reform Act of 1986 ("TRA 86"), subsection (a) (2) Public

Law 99-514 1113 (e)(1), amended paragraph (2) generally

substituting provisions covering 5 year vesting, 3-7 year

vesting and multiemployers plan for former provisions

which covered 10 year vesting, 5 to 15 year vesting and

the "Rule 45". See Also: Internal Revenue Chart of Effective retroactive Amendments: Internal Revenue Manual

Exhibit 4. 72, 14-1 dated 05/04/2001.

Section 1144(a) expressly preempts state statutes and regulations that "relate to "an ERISA plan, except for "any

15.

law which regulates insurance, banking or security,"

"any general applicable criminal law," and other specified

categories of state law. 29 U.S.C. 1144(a), (b) (2) )A), (4),

and (c)(1).

Under this Court's precedents construing that provision,

"[a] law 'relates to' and employee benefit plan * * * if it

has connection with or reference to such a plan." Shaw v.

Delta Air Lines Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983);, e.g.,

Egellioffv.EgetholZ 532 U.S. 141,147 (2001); New York

State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v.

Travelers Ins. Co, 514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995) (Travelers).

A Law has a "reference to" ERISA plans if it "acts immediately and exclusively to "ERISA plans or" existence

of ERISA plans is essential to the law's opera-tion."

California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., NA.., 519 U.S. 316, 325-326 (1997) Diiiingham)..See District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd. of

Trade, 506,U.S.125, 128, 129-133 (1992) (worker's compensation law the required employee benefits "set by refereence to [ERISA] plans") (citation omitted); Ingersoll —Rand

Co. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 135-136, 140 (1990)

(common law claim for wrongful discharge to prevent attainment of ERISA benefits);, Makey v.Lanier Collection

Agency & Sery Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 828 & n2, 829-830 1988

exemption from garnishment statute for ERISA plans).

Egeihoff, 532 U.S. at 1479 cita-tion and internal quotation

marks onutted).To avoid such an expansive breadth, the

Court has "look [ed] both to the objectives of the ERISA

plans." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); se

Travelers, 514 U.S. at 655 -656.

The purpose of ERISA's preemption provision is "to ensure that plans and plan sponsors [are subject] to an uniform body of benefits law" so that.they are not required to

tailor***plans and employer conduct to the peculiarities

16.

of the law of each jurisdiction? Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S.

at 42. That animating purpose "reflect[s] recognition of

the adminiRtrative realities of employee benefit plans". If

multistate plans were governed by different legal rules

for core administrative function, it would produce

considerable inefficiencies, which the employer might

choose to offset by lowering benefit levels" Fort Halifax,

482 U.S.at 9-10..

For that reason, Court has held that State laws"relate to

"ERISA plans under section1144(a) if they "bindflERISA

plan administrators to a particular choice of rules" or "a

central matter of plan administration." Egeihoff, 532U.S.

at 147-148. For example, Court has held that law" relate

to" ERISA plan when they designate beneficiaries of

ERISA plan id. at 143; "forbid{J a method of calculating

benefits that federal law permits, "De Bueno, 520U.S.

at 814-815 (citing Alessi v.Raybestos- Manhattan,Inc,451

U.S 504(1981); or "requirefl employers to provide certain benefits," id.at 815 (citing Shaw, supra, and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724

(1985)).. When a federal statute occupies a filed of

substantive regulation, the test for preemption "is whether the matter on which the State asserts the right to

act is in any way regulated by Federal Act Rice v.Santa Fe Elevator Corp.,331 U.S.218, 236 1947). If so the

stately is preempted, even if it is consistent with

federal objectives. See ONEOK, Inc .v. Learjet, Ins. 135

S.Ct. 1591, 1595 (2015).

Under conflict-preemption principles, a State law is

invalid (as applied to ERISA plans) if compliance with

both (the state law) and [ERISA] is impossible, or

when the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

objective of [ERISA]." United States v. Locke 529 U.S.

89, 109 (2000).

The Supreme Court recognizes "there is an important

distinction between benefit accrual and Vesting.

17.

Benefit accrual means: the rate at which an employee

earns benefits to put in his pension account and requirements for accrual are found in 204 Central Laborer's

pension Fund. Heinz 749, 124, S Ct. 2230, 159 L.

Ed. 2d 46 (2004).. See Boggs, 520 U.S. at 844. Thus, in

Boggs, this Court held that state permitting a non-participant to effect a testamentary transfer of her spouse's

undistributed pension benefits was preempted after finding a "direct clash between [the] state law and provisions and objectives of ERISA" with respect to the designation of beneficiaries of survivor annuities.520 U.S.

843-844. See: Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 214-215.A Law

would be also preempted if it frustrated the central purpose of section 1144(a) itself, which is too avoid" the prospect that employer's adniinigtrative scheme would be

subject to conflicting requirements.' Fort Halifax, 482

U.S.. at 9-10.

On the other hand ,vesting is: "the process by which an

employee's already accrued pension account become

irrevocably his property" and Minimum vesting requirements are set forth in Section 203 (a), as central

provision in ERISA.

Section 203 (a) requires that a plan treat an employee's

benefit, to the extend that they have vested by virtue of

his having fuffilled age and service requirement no

greater than specified in 203 (a) (2), as notsubject of

forfeiture.

Title IV of the ERISA, as amended, created a plan

termination insurance program, Sec. 4022 of Title IV

provides that if benefits are vested "non-forfeitable" they

are insured by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC), as international Union, Future Service Plan,

for which Petitioner worked 12 (twelve) plan years.

What is purpose of Title III? 93 Congress: "The

purpose of Title Ill is to give the employer and the

employee the right to go to the Federal Courts

to bring a suit to enforce the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, exactly the same sub-

ject matter which contained in Title I and Title

H. It is impossible to separate them (Id, at 4141)"

Finally, we have a provision in title III for bringing a

lawsuit for breach of contract. Breach of what kind of

contract? Breach of contract for collective bargaining

Agreement.

ERISA provides, however, that plan fiduciaries must

interpret and apply plan documents consistently with

the governing provisions of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C.1104

(a)(1)(D) (plan fiduciary must 'discharge his duties* **

in accordance with the documents and instruments

governing the plan in so far as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provision of Title I of

ERISA.; see Central States, Se. & Sw Areas Pension

Fund v. Central Tran.sp., Inc., 472 U.S, 559, 568, (1985)

(trust documents cannot excuse trustee from their duties under ERISA"and "trust document must generally

be construed in light of ERISA's policies).

Accordingly, a plan administrator, as an ERISA fiduciary, must look both to the terms of the plan and the requirements of ERISA- When Participant seeks a review of a

benefits decision in Federal Court, what is relevant here,

under new Plan which Petitioner obtained from International Union Fund.

The Court should construe the plan in light of the Requirements of ERISA. Congress did not intend Courts Considering Section 502 (a)(1)(B) to ignore the provision of ERISA, and Sec.301 of the [LMRA]" H. R. Cons. Rep. No.

1280, 93d Cong.2d Sess. 327 (1974). The Court has construed section 301 to require courts to read the substantive provisions of the Labor Law into the terms of Collective Bargaining Agreements, Kaiser Steel Corp., 455

U. Sat 76-79. Employer is obliged to contribute to the Plan.

See: Varity Corp. v.Howe, 516 U.S. 489.512 (1996),

Section 501(a)(1)(B) specifically provides a remedy for

breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to the interpretation of plan documents and payment of claims.

19.

ACCRUED BENEFIT

The Statute defines "accrue benefit" as individual accrued benefit determined under the plan 1002(23)(A).

"Benefit" that may not be devalued a "defined periodic benefit" the plan is legally obliged to pay".

Accrued benefits are "expressed in form of an annual

benefit commencing at normal retirement age", 29 U.

S.C.1002 (23)(A). The accrue benefits under the plan

is whatever benefit the plan promised to it's participants See: Spacek v. Maritime Assn. 134 F 3d 283.

(Ca 5 1988). See: Allessi v .Raybestos -Manhattan,

Inc. 451. US 504, 511 (1981).

See also Lockheed, 517 U.S. at 887. (ERISA does not

mandate what kind of benefits employers must proviDe if they chose to have [a benefit] plan" see Central

Laborers Pension Fund v, Heinz (02-891)541 U.S.

739 (2004) 303 F.3d 802 Affirmed (June 7, 2004).

The minimum vesting standards require accrued

benefits to be vested i.e nonforfeitable upon satisfaction specific conditions. Treas. Reg. 1.411(a)-4(a).

Under the "anti-cutback" rule ERISA 204 (g)(2), added by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 ("REA"),

Pub,L. 98-397 301 (a)(2), 98 Stat. 1451, 29 U.S.C.

1054 (g) (1) "[t]he accrued benefit of a participant

under the plan may not be eliminated or decreased

by amendment of the plan, unless that amendment

is authorized under two section of ERISA, not relevant here.When participant attains a nonforfeitable

right to his or her accrued benefits participant is

considered to be "vested" in the nonforfeitable amount. This mean that the participant has an enforceable and unconditional right to his or her vested

benefit under the plan.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner worked for Stop & Shop and International

Union pension Fund full time hours for 12 (twelve)

plan years, as cashier without interruption in Service.

See: page 7. Social Security Report, regarding Petitioners hours of worked and names of employers. Hours

of service, are full time, according payroll stubs in petitioners' possessions for 12 plan years. 29 CFR 2530.

200b-3 Determination of service to be credited to employees.

Annuity Pension payments are according to the hour

worked beginning with the first Collective bargaining

agreement and employer's contributions of January 1,

1989, page 62. , SPD, for The First National Supermarket, Corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and hereinafter referred to as the "employer".Page 61 of SPD

First National Supermarket and New England UFCW

and employees Pension Plan.

Merger of The Employer Royal Ahold,known as First

National Supermarket effective May 1,1995 with Reciprocity Agreement effective January 1,1989. See: SPD

page 62. Benefits accrued under a merged Participating Plan are subject to the provisions of that plan immediately before participation in the Future Service P1an. Petitioner worked full time hours, but wages were

paid in part-time, classification, except in period from

September 1, 1995 to February 1, 1997, as result of

merger of single employer Plan The First National Supermarket, into Multi employer Future Service Plan,

effective July 1, 1995.29. U.S.C. 1002(37). Stop & Shop

closed Finast/ d.b.a.Edwards on October 30, 1996 and

paid full time wages rate for 14 weeks and terminate

Petitioner, effective Feb. 1, 1997 at normal plan's date.

21.

STOP & SHOP WAS ACTING AS EMPLOYER AND

IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY

Edwards Supermarkets throughout Westchester, N.Y. and

New England were closed, according to Westchester News

paper to satisfy an antitrust action brought by The U. S.

Justice Department against Royal Ahold of Nederland's, the

chain's parent company. (Antitrust Laws mean to prohibit

monopolies and make sure customers benefit from a free

market.

Royal Ahold bought the Stop & Shop chain, First National

Supermarket's and Edward's biggest competitor In New

England. To a void having one corporation, operating, more

than one supermarket chain in the same region,Royal Ahold

agreed to close Edward's Stores in Westchester. Stop & Shop

allowed to have presence in Westchester and New England.

Stop & Shop was opened new Stop & Shop Supermarket in

November 1996, for which Company Petitioner worked for

14 weeks and was layoff and plan Administrator Mr. Both

was refused to provide pension application.

Petitioner received Pension Application and Summary ERISA

Plan Description ,by mail in October 2013 and applied for benefits, which are withheld, pending Court's clarification of Plan

documents and payment of claim to Petitioner.

Correspondence indicating the only persons involved in Processing and reviewing Bulovic's claim for benefits were local

Union employees, Administrator, human resources department and the in house attorney who made "explanatory" SPD.

See: Vanity, 116 S.Ct. at 1074, See:Esden v. Bank of Boston

5F. Supp. 2d.214 (1998).

Deposition Testimony of Administrator that Petitioner is not

"Participant", and that U.F.C.W. International Union's Industry Pension Fund is "completely separate legal entity than the

"Fund" See: Vanity 16 S.Ct. at 1074, when private employer decide to provide or not provide benefits, under ERISA.

22.

Statutory anti —alienation provision ERISA 1056 (d) (1)

Section 1056 (d)(1) provides: "Each pension plan shall provide that benefits

provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated. Statutory antialienation provisions are potent mechanisms to prevent the dissipation of

funds.

ERISA's "anti-alienation" provision 1056 (d)(1), says that "benefits provided

under [qualified ERISA plan] may not be assigned or alienated. This provision reflects 'A stream of income for pensioners (and their dependents...).

Guidry v, Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376

{1990}.

29 U.S.C. par.1109 (a) ERISA 409 (a) provides:

"Any person who is fiduciary with respect to the plan who breaches any

of responsibilities, obligations or duties imposed upon fiduciary by this

title shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the

plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the

plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such

fiduciary.

A Fiduciary may also be removed for violation of section 411 of this Ct." 88

Stat. 886, 29 U.S.C. par.1109 (a).

The principal statutory duties imposed on fiduciaries by that

section "relate to the proper management, administration, and

investment of the fund assets", with an eye toward ensuring that"the benefits authorized by the plan" are ultimately paid to

the participant and beneficiaries. Russell, 473 U.S., at 142: see

also Varity, 516 U.S. 511-512 (noting that 409's fiduciary obligations" relat[e] to the plan's financial integrity" and "reflec[t] a

special congressional concern about plan asset management").

The misconduct by the respondent in this case falls squarely

within that category.

See, e.g. D. Rajnes, An Evolving Pension System: Trends in Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefit

Research Institute (EBRI) Issue No. 249 (Sept. 2002), http//www.

ebri.org/ pdflbriefspdf/0902ib pdf.

23.

ERISA 502 (a)(1) (B)

Recovery for benefits under ERISA 502 (a)(1) (B) include

individual monetary damages in the form of accrued benefit due.

"to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify

his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan". The

accrual date for a benefits claim is governed by Federal Law.

Section 411(d)(6) Protected Benefits. Section 401(a)(7) provided

that trust does not constitutes a qualified trust unless its related plan satisfied the requirements of section 411.

Section 411(a)(10) (B) provides that a plan amendment

changing any vesting schedule under the plan does not satisfy

the minimum vesting standards of section 411(a)(2) unless each

participant with at least 3 years of service is permitted to elect

to have his nonforfeitable percentage computed under the

plan without regard to the plan amendments,

Section 645 (b)(1) of the Economic Growth and Tax Reconcitation Act of 2001, Public Law 107-16 (115 Stat.38) (EGTRA)

amended section 411(d)(6)(B) of the Code to direct the Secretary of Treasury to issue regulations that section 411(d)(6)(b) does

not apply to any amendment that reduces retirement benefits

Section 204(g) of ERISA contains parallel rules to that section

411(d)(6) of the Code.

On July 11, 1988 Final regulation (T.D.8212, under

section 411 (d)(6) were published in THE FEDERAL REGISTER (53FR 26050). Those regulations are contained in

1.411(d)-4the 1988 regulations.

The Court should preserve ERISA's purposeful division between benefits claim and other types of fiduciary duty claims

and "respect the 'policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and exclusion others" "Varity Corp. 516 U.S. at 515,

(quoting Pilot Life Ins.Co.v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S.41, 54(1987). See

AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan,

Et.AL, Petitioners v. John D. West, No. 07-663.

Discovery of the Relevant Plan document in October 2013,

provided by letter of International Union, was also Discovery that Local Union does not pay Pension benefits to

Employees. There is the only one International Union

pension Fund, in which employers make contributions.

Petitioner hereby ask the Court to Vacate Summary Judgment on Fraud, misrepresentation of the period in which Petitioner worked, for First National Supermarket, which merged into the Future Service Plan, and for The Stop & Shop

which merged in the same Plan on February 1,1999, with reciprocity Agreement effective January 1, 1989. All according to

Federal Regulations for Multi-employer Plans. The Plan Sponsor is Th Boa.rd of Trustee, and Pension Benefit Guarant Corporation, covers normal and early retirement benefits.

The Board of Trustees did not make decision regarding Petiioner's Pension Benefit, which was already processed.

Summary Judgment of South District Court for Defendant,

Based on Fraud and misrepresentation of facts, blocked

my Right for pension benefit under the Discovered Future

Service qualified, Pension Plan. See:

Brief of DRI- The Voice of Defense Bar, International organization of more 22,000 attorneys involved in the defense of civil litigation. Benefit Claims Cannot Be Disguised As Fiduciary Duty Claims.

"ERISA provides individual recovery for benefits claims under

502 (a) (1)(B), because adequate relief is available in the form

of accrued benefits due. See Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 515

("[Where] Congress elsewhere provided adequate relief for a

beneficiary's injury, there will likely be no need for further

equitable relief......").

Maintaining the division between benefit claims and fiduciary duty claim is essential to ensure ERISA's consistent and

predictable enforcement. The Court decision in this case should preserve this important distinction.

Southern District of New York, order of dismissal of claim

For Pension benefit under 502(a)(1)(B), dated September 7,

2016 was received on September 19, 2016 (12 day after the

Order date). Motion for reconsideration 16CV-4737 includes

Memorandum of Law, with Appendixes of 200 pages.

SMALL BUSINESS JOB PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

("SBJPA") Pub. L. 104-188,110 Stat 1755 (1996) imposed upon

multiemployer plans five years vesting requirements as to all

employees, regardless of whether they were covered by Collective bargaining agreements in a section titled:

Elimination of Special Vesting Rule for

Multiemployer Plans,

Effective January 1, 1997, or the date on which the last collective

bargaining agreement pursuant to which the plan is maintained

terminates or adopted before enactment of "SBJPA". Aug. 20,

1996, applying the amendment made by section 767 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act (Pub. Law103-465). No reduction

in accrue benefits.. See 1994 amendment. Pension Protection

Act of 1994.

Economic Growth & Tax Relief Reconsideration Act of 2001

(EGTRA 2001), Sec.633, amended IRC 411 (a), Faster vesting for

matching contributions,

CBA's are subject to the same effective date under GUST, (GATT)

as other plans.

Petitioner was already vested under Collective Bargaining Agreement with The First National Supermarket which was terminated

on June 18,1994 before enactment of "SBJPA" and was active physically on the job on January 1, 1997, effective date of "SBJPA" and

later of January 1, 1999, under CBA. See Page 47:

Such amendment shall not apply to any individual who does not

have more that 1 hour of service under the plan on or after the first

plan year to which such amendments apply,

26.

L 29 U.S.C. 1001 provides:

Congressional findings and declaration off policy

Benefit plans as affecting interstate commere and Federal taxing power

The Congress finds that the growth in size, scope

and numbers of employee benefit plans in recent years

has been rapid and substantial; that the operational

scope and economic impact of such pans is increasingly

interstatethat the continued well-being and security of

millions of employees and their dependents are directly

affected by these plans; that they are affected with national public interest; that they have become an importaint factor in commerce because of the interstate character of their activities, and of the activities of their pa

rtieipants, and employers, employee organizations, and

other entities by which they are established or maintained; that large volume of activities of such plans are

carried on by means of the mail and instrumentalities

of interstate commerce; that owing to the lack of employee information and adequate safeguards concerning

their operation, it is desirable in the interests of empoyes and their beneficiaries, and to provide for the general welfare and. a free flow of commerce, that disclosure

be made and safeguards be provided with respect to

the establishment, operation, and administration of such plans; that they substantially affect the revenues of

the United States because they are afforded preferential Federal tax.

ACCRUALS AND TERMINATION INSURANCE

PROGRAM

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

the

created

ERISA

("PBGC") to provide Federal Insurance Program that insures participants against the loss of benefits and employee's

right to his normal retirement benefit ERISA 3(23), 29 U.

S.C. 1002(23)(A) State is preempted State law if that law

actually conflict with federal Law. See Ingersoll-Rand 498

Stat. 133, (1990).

(a common Law wrongful discharge claim), that employer discriminated against an employee to prevent to accru

at of benefit or receipt of pension).See: also Lindsay v. Thiokol Corp. See also Minimum vesting standard 26 U.S.C.

411,Elimniation of special vesting Rule for multiemployers

plan, effective for plan years commencing after 1988. Tax

Reform Act of 1986 ("TRA 86"), subsection (a) (2) Public

Law 99-514 1113 (e)(1), amended paragraph (2) generally

substituting provisions covering 5 year vesting, 3-7 year

vesting and multiemployers plan for former provisions

which covered 10 year vesting, 5 to 15 year vesting and

the "Rule 46'. See Also: Internal Revenue Chart of Effective retroactive Amendments: Internal Revenue Manual

Exhibit 4.'72, 14-1 dated 05/04/2001.

SECTION 1144(a)

Section 1144(a) expressly preempts state statutes and regulations that "relate to "an ERISA plan, except for "any

law which regulates insurance, banking or security,"

"any general applicable criminal law," and other specified

categories of state law. 29 U.S.C. 1144(a), (b) (2) )A), (4),

and (c)(1).

Under this Court's precedents construing that provision,

"[a] law 'relates to' and employee benefit plan if it has

connection with or reference to such a plan." Shaw v. Delta

Air Limes Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983);, e.g., EgeTh.off

v.Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141,147 (2001); New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins.

514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995) Travelers). A Law has a "reference to" ERISA plans if it "acts immediately and exclusively

to "ERISA plans or "existence of ERISA plans is essential

to the law's operation." California Div. of Labor Standards

Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A.., 5 19 U.S. 316,

325-326 (1997) Dilhingham)..See District of Columbia v.Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506,U.S.125, 128, 129-133 (1992)

(worker's compensation law the required employee benefits

"set by reference to [ERISA] plans") (citation omitted); Ingersoll —Rand Co. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 135-136, 140 (

1990) (common law claim for wrongful discharge to prevent

attainment of ERISA benefits);, Makey v.Lanier Collection

Agency & Sery Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 828 & n2, 829-830 1988

exemption from garnishment statute for ERISA plans).

Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 1479 citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).To avoid such an expansive breadth, the

Court has "look [ed] both to the objectives of the ERISA

plans." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted);

se Travelers, 514 U.S. at 655 -656.

The purpose of ERISA's preemption provision is "to ensure that plans and plan sponsors [are subject] to an uniform body of benefits law" so that they are not required to

ataior***plans and employer conduct to the peculiarities

of the law of each jurisdiction.' Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S.

at 42. That animating purpose "reflect[s] recognition of

the administrative realities of employee benefit plans". If

multistate plans were governed by different legal rules

for core administrative function, it "would produce

considerable inefficiencies, which the employer might

choose to offset by lowering benefit levels" Fort Halifax,

482 U.S.at 9-10.

For that reason, Court has held that State laws "relate to

"ERISA plans under section1144(a) if they "bindi] ERISA

plan administrators to a particular choice of rules" or "a

central matter of plan administration." Egeihoff, 532U.

at147-148.For example, Court has held that law" relate

to" ERISA plan when they designate beneficiaries of

ERISA plan id. at 143; "forbidfl a method of calculating

benefits that federal law permits, "De Bueno, 520 U.S.

at 814-815 (citing Alessi v.Raybestos- Manhattan, Inc, 451

29.

U.S 504(1981); or "require fl employers to provide certain

benefits," id.at 815 (citing Shaw, supra, and Metropolitan

Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985))when.

a federal statute occupies a filed of substantive regulation,

the test for preemption "is whether the matter on which

the State asserts the right to act is in any way regulated

by Federal Act ." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S.

218, 236 1947). If so, the stately is preempted, even if itis

consistent with federal objectives. See ONEOK, Inc .v. Learjet, Ins. 135 S.Ct. 1591, 1595 (2015).

2. a. Under conflict- preemption principles, a State law is

invalid (as applied to ERISA plans) if compliance with both

(the state law) and [ERISA] is impossible, oror when the

state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and

execution of the full purposes and objective of [ERISA]."

United States v. Locke 529 U.S. 89, 109 (2000).

The Supreme Court recognizes "there is an important distinction between benefit accrual and Vesting. Benefit accrual

means: the rate at which an employee earns benefits to put

in his pension account and requirements for accrual are found in 204 Central Laborer's pension Fund. Heinz 749, 124,

S Ct. 2230,159 L .Ed. 2d 46 (2004).. See Boggs, 520 U.S.

at 844. Thus, in Boggs, this Court held that state permitting a

non-participant to effect a testamentary transfer of her spouse's undistributed pension benefits was preempted after finding a "direct clash between [the] state law and provisions

and objectives of ERISA" with respect to the designation of

beneficiaries of survivor annuities.520 U.S. at 843-844. See:

Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 214-215.A Law would be also preempted if it frustrated the central purpose of section 1144(a)

itself, which is too avoid " the prospect that employer's administrative scheme would be subject to conflicting requirements.' Fort Halifax, 482 U.S.. at 9-10.

On the other hand ,vesting is: "the process by which an emloyee's already accrued pension account become irrevocably his

property" and Minimum vesting requirements are set forth

in Section 203 (a), as central provision in ERISA.

Section 203 (a) requires that a plan treat an employee's benefit, to the extend that they have vested by virtue of his

having fulfilled age and service requirement no greater

than specified in 203 (a) (2), as not subject of forfeiture.

30.

STANDING

Respondent's argument that Petitioner lacks standing

under ERISA Section 502.(a) is wrong.

ERISA Section 502 (a) states that "[a] civil action may be

brought by participant or beneficiary for the relief under

the terms of the plan, to enforce right under the terms of a

plan ,or to clarify rights to future benefits under the terms

of a plan. 29 U.S.C. 1132 (a).

This section also provides that a civil action may be brought by participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary:

to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of ERISA or the terms of a plan, or

to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violation or (ii) to enforce any provisions of ERISA or the terms of the plan."

Review of Benefits Claims Denials. Section 502(k) 29 U.S.

C.1132 is amended by adding at the end the following new

subsection: (m) any action brought under this title by participant or beneficiary ( subsection (a) (1)(b, (a)3) or after

any final decision by the plan, shall be subject to the novo

review by the court and the court may review all evidence presented. Standing- Section 502 (29 U.S.C. 1132, as

amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding at the

end the following new subsection: any former participant

or beneficiary, and any individual with colorable claim to

be participant or beneficiary, shall be treated in the same

manner as a participant or beneficiary for the purpose to

bring a civil action under subsection (a) claim Review requirements for employee benefit Plans.

RECPROCITY AGREEMENTS

If because of job changes or transfers, you have worked for

many years under the jurisdiction of different plans, you may

not qualify for a pension if you do not have sufficient service

under the jurisdiction of any one plan. To remedy this, Plan

sometimes enter into agreements to recognize service with

with each other for purpose of vesting. These are called

Reciprocity Agreements.

The future Service Plan has entered into Reciprocity Agreements with other U.F.C. W.local plans, Each plan signing a reciprocity Agreement agrees that contributory service earn under the

rules of other plan may be counted for purpose of vesting.For a

list of these plans as of July 1, 2013, see Appendix B (page 62)

EXAMPLE

Kyle worked in employment covered by a UFCW local plan and

earned two years of Vesting Service with that plan. He then transfers (without experiencing a Permanent Break in Service)

to a job covered under the Future Service Pension Credit under

the Future Service Plan and earned three years of Vesting Service and Future service Pension Credit under the Future Service

Plan. There is Reciprocity Agreement between the Future Service Plan and UFCW Local Plan that was in effect before the date

Kyle transferred jobs. Assuming Kyle qualifies under the fiveyear vesting provision of the Future Service Plan because the

two earlier years of contributory service with the other UFCW

local plan will count for purposes of Vesting Service under the

Future Plan.

Rule Governing reciprocity Agreements

Future Service Pension Credit earned after June 30, 1984

that would otherwise be lost due to a Permanent Break in

Service can be reinstated by credit recognized under the

Terms of a Reciprocity Agreement, provided you initial Annuity Starting Date is after August 23, 1995 Or, if later, the

effective date of the Reciprocity Agreement. Effective Date

for Discovered Future Service Plan is January 1, 1989. Page

62.of Summary Plan Description: New England UFCW and

Employers Pension Fund..

PLAN TERMINATION INSURANCE

Title W of the ERISA, as amended, created the singe- employer plan termination insurance program, administered by the

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"). Major changes affecting the termination insurance program are made under the Single- Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of

1986, P. L. 99-272 ("SEPPAA") and the Pension Protection Act

("PPA"). which is found at Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203.

The Termination Insurance program was established to ensure

among other things, that "if a worker has been promised a define pension benefits upon retirement, and if he has fulfilled

whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefits,

he will actually receive it Nachman Corp. v. PBG, 446 U.S.

359, 361-62 (1980). To accomplish this goal, Title W of ERISA

requires the PBGC, to provide benefits to participants in defined benefit plans that terminate with insufficient assets to support their guaranteed benefits. The PBGC's guarantees of

benefits are financed, in part, from insurance premiums collected from covered pension plans. See ERISA section 4007.

Coverage

The Title IV Termination Insurance Program covers defined

Benefit pension plan. Section 4021 (a) of ERISA describes the

plans that are covered by Title IV; Section 4021(b) describes

the plans that are excluded from coverage. Under Section 4021

(c) to qualified for coverage, a plan must be defined benefit plan that is maintained by an employer or an employee organization representing employees, which is engage in commerce or

in any industry or activities affecting commerce. Moreover, the

plan must be tax-qualified under Internal Revenue Code, or have operated in practice as tax-qualified plan for the last five years peior to termination.

Sec. 4022 of Title IV provides that if benefits are vested "nonforfeitable" they are insured by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), as International Union, Future Service

Plan, for which Petitioner worked for 12 (twelve) plan years.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner is participant in The United Food and Commercial

Workers International Union-Industry Future Service Pension

Plan, "UFCW' Future Service Plan (see page 7.), which became

effective July 1, 1984.

Future Service plan is defined benefit plan which pays the benefits

only for years of service after June 30, 1984, for which Employer contributions are required. Sponsor of the Plan is Board of Trustees.

Assets of the Plan is $ 6,04 billion, on June 30, 2017, which include

Benefits guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

("PBGC"). A federal Insurance agency. The PBGC guarantee covers

normal and early retirement benefits.

The Future Service Plan is maintained pursuant to collective bargaing agreements between the employers and Local Unions. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreements determine the amount of Employer contributions and Employees on whose behalf contributions are made. Future Service Plan must be used to provide benefits according to Future Service Plan document and federal law.

Any action taken to change or discontinue the Plan will be made

and communicated in writing.

Petitioner is covered by above Plan and earned benefits according to

Provision of the Plan, which Fund mailed to Petitioner with Pension

application, which is already processed by their Committee, and withheld payments of benefits, based on District Court Summary Judgment for Administrator of Local Union Fiduciary, for plan documents.

The Employee Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, "ERISA, preempts any and all state Laws in so far as they may now or hereafter

relate to any benefit plan "29 U.S.C. 1144."

Section 3/16 of Title I of ERISA specifies that the trustees are the

Plan sponsors, appointed according to the International Union Constitution and Future Service Plan to administer the Plan according

to Federal law.

34.

Congress categorically prohibited plan fiduciaries from engaging in specific

transaction that were "likely to injure the pension plan and participants".

District Court dismissed petitioner's Motion for benefits under Discovered

Pension Plan applying Illegal Plan, pre-empted and repealed Plan of 1954,

20 years before ERISA of 1974.

Pub.L.101-239 7891 (a)(1) substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for

"Internal revenue Code" 1954", which was translated as Title 26. Under

The new Law participant earned benefit and that is:

1. Life annuity in as service only plan. It is a dollar amount that she is entitled to which is benefit. It would violate vesting rules.There is two parts of

ERISA and it is set in "Allessi" opinion in 1981. You have to accrue benefit

and then you vest in benefit. The accrual is when you've earned the benefit.

She earned the benefit. She earned her pension. Then she has to vest in it.

That is, though she earned it. She has what "Alessi" calls a non-forfeitable

right to claim it.

And what provision Article does it says: your benefit is still exist. (Page 7.

of SPD). Her benefit is life annuity. It exists. Her benefit is life annuity.

There is a stream of payments that is available every single month.

That is accrual Rule. You have to have right to claim it. Question: it's not

You that vest. It is the pension that vests, isn't it?

There is a benefit out there, this life annuity. And the question is: do you

have the right to claim it in any particular month? That is Structure of

section 203 The accrued benefit may not be eliminated by new Rules.

ERISA Reticulated Statute: there are 3,978 pages of regulations.

Benefit is the life annuity. There are two ways you can vest under ERISA:

"One if over course of 7 years in individual steps." Another is so called

35.

Cliff Vesting, and that is. You've got your benefits. You have your benefit.

You have earned it, but until you have been in service for 5 years, you do

not have legal claim to it notwithstanding that it is out there.

203 (c) are allowed to change their vesting rules, but it speak for future effect, not retroactive. What is authority for that? 203 (c) explains that if you

have less than 3 years of service, you are not allowed to object to the change vested condition. Change of vesting it would violate 1053. It will violate

1(a) and paragraph 1053(a)(2)(A) and (B).

It says, except provided in paragraph 4, which is not relevant,a plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if it satisfies the requirements of

Subsection (A) to (B). give you 5-year cliff vesting option or instead over 7

years.

A Plan satisfied the requirements of this Subparagraph if an employee who

has completed at least 5-years of Service has a non-forfeitable right to 100

percent of the employee's accrued benefit derived from employer contributions. And then (B) is other option, the 7 years. You would acquire the accrued benefit under 1054 as it accrued over time., but you have to vest in it

under 1053.

The protection of the participant's legitimate expectations is a theme that

runs throughout the provisions of ERISA. Sec. 203 (a)(3)(B).

203 (a) says your normal retirement is non-forfeitable. This is 29 C.F.R.

2530.203 is defining the universe of possible Suspensions Rule for normal

retirement benefits. It doesn't limit the universe of suspension rule for

early retirements benefits. It's whatever the plan promises to the participant that is protected by the plan.

In the Internal Revenue Manual, the IRS says: You can have provision

saying that any work is suppressive, but you can only do that prospectively, because applying the such a change rule retroactively would decrease

benefits.

The conflict created by the decision of District Court in this case

would preclude a uniform national administration of pension plan

rules. One of the principal goals of ERISA is "to establish a uniform

administrative scheme, which provides the standard procedures

to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits". Fort

Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne,482 U.S. 1, 9 1987).

Under 29 U.S.C. 1144 Other Laws the provision of this Subchapter

and Subchapter III of this Chapter shall supersede any and all States laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee

benefit plan described in section 1003 (b) of this Title.

Par. 301 Labor Act, under Collective Bargaining Agreements affecting interstate Commerce should be enforceable in the Federal Courts.

as Congress stated: "Statutory- recognition of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, as a valid, binding, and enforceable contract is a logical and necessary step. It will promote a higher degree of responsibilities upon the parties to such agreement and will thereby promote

industrial peace".

District Court Order should be vacated and remanded for review under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended and 301 Labor Management Relations Act of 1947,(LMRA), 61 Stat,

156, 29 U.S.C. 185.

Review by this Court of the conflict created by decision in this case is

thus warranted both by the importance of the issue and by need to

ensure uniformity in the administration of this national legislation.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted.

May, 2018

D, b ,,.,

V(C.

DANICA BULOVIC), Pro-se

37.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.