ERISA Funds Shielded from Creditor Claims, Court Rules

Angad Chatha

Angad Chatha is a law graduate from Amritsar, Punjab, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. He has developed a strong niche in working with expert witnesses, providing critical support in preparing legal research and case studies. Known for his analytical mindset and attention to detail, Angad consistently delivers thorough and well-grounded insights that enhance case summaries. His commitment to accuracy and a deep understanding of legal frameworks make him a valuable asset in complex legal sector.

August 7, 20254 min read

Establishing the Retirement Plans

Med-Legal Associates, Inc., based in Los Angeles, acted as the sponsor and administrator of two employee benefit plans: the MLA Defined Benefit Pension Plan (established in 2013) and the MLA Money Purchase Pension Plan (effective from 2017). These plans were created to provide retirement benefits to employees other than the company’s owner and spouse. Annual contributions were made and calculated by an enrolled actuary in accordance with IRS standards. Both plans included ERISA-compliant anti-alienation provisions explicitly barring creditors from accessing plan funds.

Conflict Over Creditor Claims

In 2017, defendants Bruce E. Fishman, M.D. and his professional corporation obtained a civil judgment against Med-Legal Associates. Two years later, they began efforts to enforce the judgment by attempting to levy and garnish funds from the MLA pension plans. Med-Legal objected, asserting that the retirement plan assets were protected by ERISA and the plans’ governing documents. The company argued that these attempts violated federal law and endangered benefits meant for multiple covered employees.

Risk to Fiduciary Integrity and Beneficiaries

Med-Legal claimed that the defendants’ collection efforts placed the company in a compromised position as plan fiduciary. If the levies were allowed to proceed, the retirement benefits of numerous eligible employees would be exposed to creditor seizure. This not only threatened employee interests but also created potential legal liability for the administrator, who was bound to safeguard plan assets under ERISA. Med-Legal emphasized the need to shield the plans from external interference.

Seeking Protection, Not Compensation

Rather than request financial compensation, the plaintiff sought legal protection. Med-Legal asked the court for a declaratory judgment confirming that both plans qualified under ERISA and were immune from creditor action. It also requested a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from levying or garnishing any plan assets. These remedies were intended to preserve the retirement funds and affirm the statutory protections they were entitled to.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Med-Legal Associates, Inc.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Ronald D. Tym | Rebecca B. Mocciaro
Defendant(s): Bruce E. Fishman, M.D., FICS, Inc. | Bruce E. Fishman, M.D.
Counsel for Defendants: Howard A. Kapp | Richard O. Evanns

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The complaint stated two core legal claims:

Declaratory Relief – Med-Legal requested a court declaration affirming that both pension plans were qualified ERISA plans and protected from the judgment enforcement efforts of the defendants.
Injunctive Relief – The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the defendants from any current or future attempts to collect funds from the pension plans, emphasizing the plans’ legal insulation from creditor access.

Defense

Defendants Bruce E. Fishman, M.D. and his medical corporation generally denied most allegations in the complaint and asserted that they lacked sufficient information to respond to many of the factual claims. While they admitted being judgment creditors of Med-Legal Associates, they denied attempting to levy or garnish ERISA-protected plan assets, asserting instead that they merely sought discovery in related state court proceedings. They argued that ERISA does not shield employer-owned plan assets from employer creditors and challenged the plaintiff’s legal interpretation of ERISA protections.

In their affirmative defenses, the defendants claimed that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and was barred by multiple legal doctrines, including waiver, unclean hands, estoppel, res judicata, privilege, and lack of standing. They further argued that the plaintiff had lost ERISA protections by violating plan provisions and that the claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations. The defendants requested dismissal with prejudice, recovery of their legal costs and attorney’s fees, and any further relief the court deemed appropriate.

Judgment and Permanent Injunction

On July 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered final judgment in favor of Med-Legal Associates, Inc., the plan administrator of two ERISA-governed retirement plans. The Court found that summary adjudication in a related state court matter established res judicata, entitling the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law.

The Court issued a Declaratory Judgment confirming that all funds held in the MLA Defined Benefit Pension Plan and MLA Money Purchase Pension Plan are legally protected from any levy, garnishment, or collection attempts by defendants Bruce E. Fishman, M.D., and his corporation.

The Court also issued a Permanent Injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prohibiting the defendants and those acting on their behalf from pursuing any collection efforts against the retirement plan assets. Finally, the Court awarded costs to the plaintiff as permitted by law.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]

Gas Mechanic Wins No Relief in Con Ed Discrimination Trial

Trevor Burke, an African-American gas troubleshooter mechanic, filed a lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging race and disability discrimination under federal, state, and local laws. After a multi-vehicle workplace accident in September 2020 left him with severe heart and knee injuries, Mr. Burke underwent emergency open-heart surgery and was placed on an extended medical leave. Under the governing collective bargaining agreement, protected disability leave was capped at one year, making September 9, 2021, his final deadline to return to work. Although cleared by his personal physician with a 25-pound lifting restriction, and initially cleared by a Con Edison doctor with a 20-pound restriction, Mr. Burke received conflicting instructions from operations management on the final day of his leave. Later that same afternoon, his union representative informed him that Con Edison had terminated his employment. Mr. Burke alleged that the company bypassed the mandatory interactive accommodation process and refused to reassign him to open light-duty roles. He also raised a claim of disparate treatment, pointing to a white comparator with a severe cardiac condition whom Con Edison accommodated with light-duty tasks, a partner, and a driver. Con Edison denied all allegations, arguing that a 50-pound lifting capacity was an essential requirement for the mechanic position and that no alternative vacancies were available. Following a full trial, a federal jury returned a complete defense verdict, clearing Con Edison of all liability.