SHEPARD-SMITH v. PMC PROPERTY GROUP, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALISHA SHEPHARD-SMITH
v.
PMC PROPERTY GROUP, INC.
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-530
MEMORANDUM
Bartle, J. 	January 12, 2026
Plaintiff, Alisha Shephard-Smith, has sued PMC
Property Group, Inc. (“PMC”) under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 1132
(6)(1)(B). 	She seeks from PMC, the Plan Administrator, 100% of
the benefits of the 401(k) retirement account of her deceased
father Charles D. Shepard. 	Before the court are cross-motions
for judgment on the administrative record.
I
It is undisputed that the benefit plan in issue gives
the administrator discretionary authority to determine
eligibility for benefits and to construe the meaning of the
terms of the plan. 	Under these circumstances, the plan
administrator is analogous to a trustee. 	The guiding principle
in a court’s review is the common law of trusts. 	Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 111 (2008). 	Accordingly,
the court must review any decision not de novo but for abuse of
discretion, that is under an arbitrary and capricious standard.
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 7

-2-
Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d
Cir. 2011). 	The court must uphold the determination of the
administrator unless it is “without reason, unsupported by
substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.” 	Noga v.
Fulton Fin. Corp. Emp. Benefits Plan, 19 F.4th 264, 275 (3d Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	The decision should
not be disturbed if “there is sufficient evidence for a
reasonable person to agree with the decision.” 	Courson v. Bert
Bell NFL Player Ret. Plan, 214 F.3d 136, 142 (3d Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 	If, however, the Plan
Administrator acts under a conflict of interest, the court must
take this factor into account in deciding whether there is an
abuse of discretion. 	Glenn, 554 U.S. at 112; Miller v. Am.
Airlines, 632 F.3d 837, 845 n.3 (3d Cir. 2011).
II
This court’s review is based on the administrative
record on which the parties solely rely. 	See Howley v. Mellon
Financial Group, 625 F.3d 788, 793 (3d Cir. 2009).
Mr. Shepard died at Fox Chase Cancer Center in
Philadelphia on May 5, 2018. 	It is the plaintiff’s position
that PMC thereafter wrongfully diverted the payment of 50% of
the benefits under his 401(k) account to her brother Donald
Shepard instead of paying 100% to her. 	According to plaintiff,
on May 4, 2018, the day before her father died, he signed
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 7

-3-
separate beneficiary forms designating her as the sole
beneficiary of his 401(k) account and her and her brother as the
beneficiaries of his life insurance. 	Plaintiff asserts that at
her request a social worker Linda Feldman at Fox Chase Cancer
Center faxed the signed forms the same day to the attention of
“Jasmine.” 	Jasmine Declet was the PMC Human Resources Director
at the time.
PMC maintains that it never received the beneficiary
forms as no such forms were found in Mr. Shepard’s personnel
files or in the files of Empower, its record keeper. 	It can be
inferred from emails in the record that no such documentation
was in the hands of PMC at least as of July 2018. 	In support of
its position that it did nothing wrong, it cites Section 7.04(a)
of the ERISA Plan which states that “all beneficiary
designations shall be in writing on a form satisfactory to the
Plan Administrator and shall only be effective when filed with
the Plan Administrator during the participant’s lifetime.”
Administrative Record at 47, Shepard-Smith v. PMC Property
Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 25-530 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2025) (Doc.
# 14) (“Administrative Record”). 	Since there were no
beneficiary designations in Mr. Shepard’s file and he was
unmarried at the time of his death, Section 704(c) of the Plan
provides that the benefits are to be divided in equal shares
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 7

-4-
between or among his children. 	See id. at 48. 	Mr. Shepard had
two children, plaintiff and her brother.
The record is devoid of any contemporaneous or later
statement from Ms. Feldman confirming that she sent the fax or
from Ms. Declet confirming that she received it. 	Plaintiff,
however, had in her possession and has produced in 2024 a copy
of the beneficiary designation form signed on May 4, 2018 by her
father and the fax cover sheet identifying the sender as Linda
Feldman and the recipient as “Jasmine.” 	The fax number on the
cover sheet matches the fax number for Ms. Declet at PMC. 	The
fax cover sheet states it was sent at “3:20 p.m.” on May 4,
2018. 	Yet the attached beneficiary designation form for Mr.
Shepard’s 401(k) account has the time as “11:36.” 	The word
“Maria” also appears printed on the top of the form along with
the time. 	Maria has not been identified.
While Mr. Shepard died in May 2018, no effort was made
to obtain distribution of the 401(k) benefits until January
2024. 	At that time, Donald Shephard requested distribution of
his 50% share and told PMC that he and plaintiff had agree to
the even split of the funds. 	Plaintiff, when informed, told PMC
that her brother’s statement was false and sent a copy of the
May 4, 2018 beneficiary designation form and fax in her
possession to Carly Quinn, the current PMC Resources Manager.
Nonetheless, as there was no beneficiary designation form in Mr.
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 7

-5-
Shepard’s file during his lifetime, 50% of the benefits at PMC’s
direction were forwarded to Donald Shepard as he requested.
Plaintiff challenged the payment and filed an
administrative appeal with PMC without success. 	PMC determined
that it had no beneficiary designation form at the time of Mr.
Shephard’s death as required by the Plan and that the benefits
of his 401(k) plan are properly to be divided equally between
plaintiff and her brother.1
After PMC rejected plaintiff’s claim and thereafter
affirmed its decision, plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking 100%
of the benefits.
III
Plaintiff argues that PMC had a conflict of interest
when it reached its decision to deny plaintiff’s claim. 	She
notes that PMC would be required to pay 50% more than was in Mr.
Shepard’s 401(k) account if it ruled in favor of plaintiff since
50% had already been paid out to her brother. 	The court agrees
that this is a factor which it must consider in determining
whether PMC has abused its discretion. 	See Glenn, 554 U.S. at
112.
1 	In support of its denial of the plaintiff’s administrative
appeal, PMC also stated that it “cannot verify whether the
Participant [Charles Shepard] validly signed the [May 4, 2018]
beneficiary form.” 	See Administrative Record, at 206. 	PMC no
longer relies on this additional ground for denying plaintiff’s
claim.
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 7

-6-
After review of the administrative record, a
reasonable factfinder could find that PMC received on May 4,
2018 the fax containing the beneficiary designation form signed
by Charles Shepard that day and designating plaintiff as the
sole beneficiary of his 401(k) account. 	It could then draw a
reasonable inference that PMC simply lost or misplaced it. 	On
the other hand, a reasonable factfinder could also find that PMC
never received the fax and its attachments during Mr. Shepard’s
lifetime and that is why the beneficiary designation form was
not in his file.
This court, of course, is not sitting as a factfinder
to decide de novo which version is more likely. 	Its role is
much more limited. 	It must simply determine whether PMC abused
its discretion in coming to the conclusion it did. 	In making
this determination, it needs to consider that PMC will save
money by ruling against plaintiff.
The court has reviewed the record and taken into
account that PMC will benefit financially from its decision.
The court finds that PMC as the Plan Administrator did not abuse
its discretion. 	There is no evidence of deception or improper
motive. 	It fairly construed the terms of the Plan. 	PMC acted
reasonably in making the decision that it did not receive the
May 4, 2018 beneficiary designation form before Charles Shepard
died and that plaintiff Alisha Shephard-Smith was not the sole
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 7

-7-
beneficiary of her father’s 401(k) account. 	She must share the
benefits with her brother.
Accordingly, the motion of defendant PMC Property
Group, Inc. for judgment on the administrative record will be
granted. 	The motion of plaintiff Alisha Shepard-Smith for
judgment on the administrative record will be denied.
Case 2:25-cv-00530-HB Document 22 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 7