D. Grant Peacock v. Jack L. Thomas (516 U.S. 349)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 516 U.S. 349 · 116 S. Ct. 862
- Decided
- February 21, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the issue whether federal courts possess ancillary jurisdiction over new actions in which a federal judgment creditor seeks to impose liability for a money judgment on a person not otherwise liable for the judgment. We hold that they do not. I Respondent Jack L. Thomas is a former employee of TruTech, Inc. In 1987, Thomas filed an ERISA class action in federal court against Tru-Tech and petitioner D. Grant Peacock, an officer and shareholder of Tru-Tech, for benefits due under the corporation’s pension benefits plan. Thomas alleged primarily that Tru-Tech and Peacock breached their fiduciary duties to the class in administering the plan. The District Court found that Tru-Tech had breached its fiduciary duties, but ruled that Peacock was not a fiduciary. On November 28, 1988, the District Court entered judgment in the amount of $187,628.93 against Tru-Tech only. Thomas v. Tru-Tech, Inc., No. 87-2243-3 (D. S. C.). On April 3, 1990, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Judgt. order reported at 900 F. 2d 256. Thomas did not execute the judgment while the ease was on appeal and, during that time, Peacock settled many of Tru-Tech’s accounts with favored creditors, including himself. After the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, Thomas unsuccessfully attempted to collect the judgment from…
Excerpt of a 17,922-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.