Castruita v. Arboretum Group Inc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 00-51051
Summary Calendar
MARIA CAMACHO CASTRUITA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
THE ARBORETUM GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
*******************************************************
______________________________
No. 00-51096
Summary Calendar
MARIA CAMACHO CASTRUITA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
THE ARBORETUM GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.

-- 1 of 3 --

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A-00-CV-60-JN)
June 14, 2001
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is a suit between an employee/plaintiff, Maria Camacho
Castruita (“Castruita”), and her employer/defendant, The Arboretum
Group, Inc. (“Arboretum”), over benefits and remedies over an
occupational injury sustained by Castruita during the course of her
employment by Arboretum. When she started to work at Arboretum,
Castruita voluntarily elected to participate in Arboretum’s ERISA-
Qualified Occupational Injury Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) which
contained a waiver of her common law right to suit in exchange for
eligibility under the Plan. Subsequently, Castruita sustained an
injury and made claim for, accepted, and retained benefits under
the Plan. Thereafter, she sued Arboretum in state court on a
common law negligence claim. Arboretum answered claiming
peremption under ERISA and removed to federal court. Both sides
moved for summary judgment and their motions were referred to the
magistrate judge for report and recommendation. Both parties filed
motions for sanctions against the other party and such motions were
also referred to the magistrate judge for report and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
recommendation. After de novo review of the magistrate’s report
and recommendations, the district judge granted summary judgment in
favor of Arboretum and denied Arboretum’s motion for sanctions but
granted Castruita’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $500.
Castruita filed a timely notice of appeal as to the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Arboretum (No. 00-51051) and Arboretum
filed a notice of appeal as to the grant of sanctions in favor of
Castruita (No. 00-51096). Both appeals were consolidated by
agreement in this Court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,
the reply briefs, and relevant portions of the record in each
appeal. For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his
report and recommendations, which were adopted by the district
judge, we affirm the final judgment entered in this case by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --