Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
The first issue is whether ERISA § 514(a). Against a third party who is neither a fiduciary nor a party in interest with respect to the plan. The second issue is whether ERISA § 502(a)(3). Whose interests are adverse to the interests of a pension plan subject to ERISA. The third issue is closely related to the second and asks whether ERISA § 502(a)(3) provides a cause of action for appropriate equitable relief against a nonfiduciary. I. Appellant Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (the Pension Fund) is a multi employer employee pension benefit plan. The Pension Fund is located in Alexandria. Inc. is an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of managing hotel properties and has its principal place of business in Cedar Rapids. Inc. were under the Holiday Inn flag. Inc. is wholly owned by two brothers. 000 in debt were offered to over 100 potential investors in 1988 through mid 1989 with the expectation of obtaining $40. Inc. was the limited partner in LHLP. Was the general partner in LHLP and initially owned the remaining one percent.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on an appeal by Stanley Smith in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 was an Oregon investment management company that made investments for several hundred individuals. The employee plans are retirement and other employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).2 Under investment advisory agreements and powers of attorney. In some of the agreements discussed below CCI was the signing or designated party. Some of the ERISA plans were also multiemployer trust funds subject to the Labor Management Relations Act. The receiver also returned about $20 million in cash held in clients' custodial accounts.3 The publicly held securities and cash were
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Were dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as time barred on the face of the complaint. Was also dismissed on the ground that it was duplicative of claims in two related actions then pending before the District Court. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings and in so doing make explicit that the federal discovery rule should be used to determine the date of accrual of the nonfiduciary duty claims alleged here. All newly hired agents were independent contractors providing services to Allstate under a contract known as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a case of first impression in this circuit. Page 2 a pension payment is received at the prison. It is deposited into the prisoner's institutional account. Only to the extent that DaimlerChrysler is required to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that the Westinghouse Plan was amended impermissibly by first the narrowing. Of a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The total judgment was for $614. While these assurances were inconsistent with the terms of the plan. As the terms were in the plan and also were described in the summary plan description which the appellants provided to Haberern. The appellants argue that recovery on this claim is barred because damages for a breach of fiduciary duty cannot be awarded to a plan beneficiary under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. We find that the reduction in Haberern's salary was a management decision for which they cannot be liable under ERISA. We determine that the district court's conclusion that a letter Haberern's attorney sent to the appellants' attorney was a request for information within the meaning of section 105(a). Is erroneous as a matter of law. We will reverse the district court's judgment awarding damages on all these grounds. We have noted a comment in the appellants' brief that the district court barely distinguished among the appellants in reaching its conclusions. We recognize that the district court may have entered judgment on certain claims against particular appellants not liable on those claims.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Alfred DiGiacomo was a member of the Teamsters Union and a participant in the Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity (the
|
|
LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Griggs claimed that DuPont breached its fiduciary duty by leading Griggs to believe that he was eligible for a tax deferred lump sum distribution of early retirement benefits under DuPont's Temporary Pension System and then failing to notify Griggs when DuPont learned that Griggs's election to receive such a distribution was not permitted by federal tax laws. We conclude that Griggs is not necessarily without a remedy under ERISA. The SIP is a retirement savings vehicle akin to a 401(k) plan through which an employee's benefits accumulate on a tax deferred basis. TPS was designed to assist DuPont employees who were leaving their jobs at DuPont. A participant in TPS was entitled to one month of pay for every two years of service. Were not universally available to DuPont employees at all times. TPS benefits were offered to employees for a limited
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The principal issue is whether either the Property Settlement Agreement (
|
|
03-6112 -- FELIX V. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 10/26/2004
Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely
preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a class action lawsuit brought by early retirees in the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK Steel Plan) who elected to receive their pension benefits under the Plan in the form of a lump sum payment. The AK Steel Plan is a cash balance plan specifying that participants can elect to receive a lump sum equal to their
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which were delayed but eventually paid under his pension plan. Is clearly precluded by our decision in Flint v. He is not entitled to interest pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(3). I. BACKGROUND The facts of Green's case are undisputed. Green was employed as a coal miner with Jim Waters Resources. Green was offered employee benefits through the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This case is before us on the bankruptcy Trustee's appeal from a ruling of the bankruptcy court that the Debtors. Were the beneficiaries of trusts with enforceable transfer restrictions such that their beneficial interests in those trusts were excluded from their bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). Because we conclude that the Debtors failed to carry their burdens of proof that they were beneficiaries of trusts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The principal issue in this case is whether the bankruptcy court erred when it concluded that the Debtors' § 403(b) annuity plans constitute trusts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The bankruptcy court's determination that the assets of these pension plans were excluded from the bankruptcy estate by operation of § 541(c)(2) is a conclusion of law which is reviewed de novo. A court's findings of fact are accepted by appellate courts unless they are clearly erroneous. Both of which are qualified under 26 U.S.C. § 403(b) as tax sheltered annuity pension plans.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is the beneficiary of that plan. Was an employee of the company and a plan participant until his death in 1995. Who were also parties to the action below. He was married to Brenda Fuston Petry Bryant (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They believe that their pension payments were reduced in a manner that violates the anti cutback provisions of the statute. Facts The Pension Fund is a multiemployer pension plan within the meaning of ERISA. The Trustees have discretionary and final authority with respect to the administration of the Pension Fund and the construction of its terms. The plaintiffs are participants of the plan who believe that their pensions were reduced by application of the reemployment provisions of the plan in a manner that violates the anti cutback provisions. Or in any other industry if the Participant or Pensioner is in the same job classification as are other Participants then employed by a Contributing Employer located within the same standard metropolitan statistical area [(
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti alienation provision. I The criminal information filed against Novak alleged that between 1995 and 1999 he transported certain valuable telephone boards in interstate commerce knowing that the boards were stolen. His then wife was employed by Nestle U.S.A. Novak was also charged with failing to report the income he received from selling the stolen telephone boards on his 1997 federal income tax returns. He earned pension benefits that were fully vested at the time of his plea. NOVAK 3177 The writ was issued pursuant to the garnishment provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nelson was awarded an interest in his former spouse's ERISA qualified retirement plan in the amount of approximately $71. Nelson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and asserted that the interest was either not property of his bankruptcy estate. That it was exempt under either 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) or 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). The bankruptcy court ruled that the interest was property of the bankruptcy estate and was not exempt except in the amount of $4. Which was the remaining sum available under the wildcard exemption set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5). Nelson appeals only from the bankruptcy court's ruling that his interest in the ERISA qualified retirement plan was property of the bankruptcy estate. Nelson was divorced from Denise Nelson in September of 2000. Which was the entire marital value of this asset.1 There is no dispute that this retirement plan is a qualified plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Seeking a writ of execution against the Plan for the amount in which Myers was in arrears on his child support payments under the 1981 judgment. This order
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Seeking a writ of execution against the Plan for the amount in which Myers was in arrears on his child support payments under the 1981 judgment. This order
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was employed by Appellee New Jersey Natural Gas Company (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
An administrative Declaratory Order interpreting the Act are preempted by ERISA. We find the Act and its regulations are not preempted because they confer broad authority that may be implemented in a manner consistent with ERISA. Therefore we will affirm the judgment of the district court striking the Declaratory Order. The Prevailing Wage Act The purpose of the Prevailing Wage Act
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Contending that they were required to indemnify him for any judgment obtained against him and for the cost of defending the suit. The Settlement Agreement provided that Hazel
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PONI argues that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge's determination that PONI's state law claims against the Appellees are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal by Dr. A
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Who was Tom's widow. Betty's claim was based on a property settlement agreement that she entered into with Tom in connection with their divorce. The district court held that Betty's claim was preempted because it was based upon state law that related to an employee benefit plan. Her constructive trust claim is not preempted. Which was incorporated but not merged into their divorce decree. A separate QDRO that was entered by the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. The transferred policies are not at issue in this appeal. Betty never received or requested such proof. 3 was maintained through his employer. Which was administered by MetLife. This life insurance policy was subject to the provisions of ERISA. It was not specifically mentioned in the property settlement agreement. The beneficiary designations on the policies were changed frequently. Betty was not named as the beneficiary of either the MetLife policy or any other policy that would fulfill the property settlement agreement's $200. The threshold question in this case is whether ERISA preempts the enforcement of a property settlement agreement against life insurance benefits paid through an ERISA governed plan.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge This is a battle for William Knapp's estate. It is in federal court because he kept much of his wealth in employee benefit trusts that were subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Crown1 argues that it did not breach its fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries because merger into a multiemployer plan is an impermissible means of terminating a pension plan under ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Merger into a multiemployer plan is not a prohibited means of terminating a pension plan. Inc. was the parent company of Crown Paper Co. The employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements with PACE. Members of Crown's board of directors were also the trustees for its eighteen pension plans. Beck is the liquidating trustee of the Crown estates. Are the focus of this action. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) filed proofs of claims totaling millions of dollars for the liability it would have been forced to assume if it had taken over Crown's pension plans. PIUMPF's actuary reported that the merger was feasible. Crown's counsel stated at a hearing in the bankruptcy court that it was looking into the possibility of a merger with PIUMPF.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That it is the obligation of his pension fund. We remand for a determination of whether Wilkins was prejudiced by this omission. If he was. For a determination of the amount of benefits he is due. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. Which is administered by the Mason Tenders District Council (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) in finding that Murphy's claim under §§ 1024(b)(1) and (b)(2) of ERISA was not properly raised in her complaint. Defendant is incorrectly identified in the complaint. The company's correct name is the Glidden Company d/b/a ICI Paints. 1 1 No. 03 4343 Minadeo v. That report and recommendation was issued on March 1. Murphy was one of several Canadians courted by Glidden. She then held the position of Director of Operations and Administration for another division until it was eliminated in September 1998 as part of a corporate reorganization. Significant changes were made to Glidden's' internal structure. Murphy was directly supervised by Pete Appell (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
MA 02210 Counsel for Appellee/Cross Appellant pension fund against Holmes was untimely. As the complaint was filed seven years after the cause of action accrued. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Is the plan sponsor of a multiemployer fund established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="786"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-2078.man.html">HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-7060.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question in this case is whether the Earned Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) makes an employer a fiduciary to its employees if it agrees to make regular employer contributions to an ERISA covered employee benefit <hr> plan. The Plaintiff Appellants (Trustees) are trustees of various employee benefit funds (Funds) who sued the Defendant Appellees (the Lunas) to recover promised but unpaid monthly employer contributions to the Funds. The payments were owed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement to which the Lunas' company was a party. Finding that the Lunas were not ERISA fiduciaries. We AFFIRM the district court's ruling that the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Inc. was an Oklahoma construction company that employed workers represented by Local 584 of the International Association of Bridge. Employer contributions under the CBA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1128p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When both Congress and the terms of the ESOP provide that the primary purpose of the plan is to invest in the employer's securities. We will vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plan fiduciaries and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. In this opinion we will refer to the plaintiff appellant Charles Moench. Statewide's Demise Statewide Bancorp was a bank holding company with its principal office in Toms River. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) informed the Statewide Board that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="777"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612117.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1236.htm">99-1236 -- BRONK V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH INC. -- 06/27/2000<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that plaintiffs were properly excluded from defendants' employee welfare plans. Would be entitled to participate in defendants' pension plans if they could demonstrate they were common law employees of defendants. Concluding plaintiffs were not entitled to participate in either the welfare plans or the pension plans. 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Plaintiffs are twenty nine individuals who. Plaintiffs were not hired directly by Mountain States or US West. Instead were hired by various leasing companies who. Entered into leasing contracts with US West and Mountain States.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3314.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether a pension plan amendment which expands the types of post retirement employment that trigger mandatory suspension of early retirement benefits violates ERISA's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1650p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1622p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving the failure of a plan administrator to notify a plan participant of the irrevocability of his retirement benefit election and joint annuitant designation. There are two principal issues on appeal. Whether the failure to explain the irrevocability of the benefit election was a breach of the administrator's fiduciary duty. We will affirm in part. Flying Tiger was the plan administrator until 1989. Thereafter Federal Express was the plan administrator. The plans are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041181p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide (1) whether the grant of summary judgment was proper. (3) whether the award of attorney's fees was proper. The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that he was eligible for such benefits on December 14. The Disability Retirement Pension to which he was entitled under the Union's Pension Plan. When calculating his length of service (upon which the amount of pension is based).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1067p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7043a.html">EDDY JAMES PETER V. COLONIAL LIFE INS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4MjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3828-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are former employees of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1798.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <U>Christopher Novello</U> was on brief. Was an ERISA plan that preempted various state law claims.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procter & Hoar were on brief for appellants. Grady and Grady and Dwyer were on brief for appellees. New England employees of United Parcel Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022666.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are five former employees of the nowbankrupt Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-3013.htm">98-3013 -- STAMPER V. TOTAL PETROLEUM INC. -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
We now affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1650p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. I. The Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 74 Pension Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0159p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Participants in an employee pension plan have appealed the entry of summary judgment against them on their discrimination claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEwMDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1003-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
None was provided. It became clear to plaintiff that defendants were not going to pay his past salary and had not established pension benefits for him. Charles III will be referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/99-1465.htm">99-1465 -- ALLISON V. BANK ONE - DENVER -- 05/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the RICO and COCCA claims prior to trial and they are not the subject of these appeals. Before us are the parties' appeals and cross appeals arising from the district court's rulings. Including its post judgment decisions regarding costs.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055445p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The most significant issue on this appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that the PNC cash balance plan does not discriminate against older employees on the basis of their age. We will affirm the district court's November 21. Are not in dispute. PNC maintained a traditional defined benefit pension plan for its employees providing that a participant's normal retirement (age 65) benefit was calculated by multiplying a fixed percentage (1.3% for service up to and including 25 years and 1.0% for service in excess of 25 years) with the participant's years of service and final average pay. Which is a particular form of defined benefit plan. The accounts were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995472.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His claim was approved on June 18. Benefits are payable under the Plan when a worker becomes totally disabled and remains disabled for six consecutive months.1 See App. at B21. Because Syed was 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM5MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3926-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs maintain that the Fines and PHP (1) failed to disclose to the employees that the Company was in dire financial straits and was therefore unable to make the payments necessary to support the Company's healthcare plan. The district court concluded that neither the Fines nor PHP were ERISA fiduciaries within the meaning of the statute. The plaintiffs maintain their argument that the Fines and PHP were ERISA fiduciaries. Arguing that those claims are preempted by ERISA. We (1) agree with the district court that the Fines were not ERISA fiduciaries. (2) conclude that the district court erred in ruling that PHP was not an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the assets of the Company's healthcare plan over which PHP had control. (3) hold that all but one of the plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by ERISA. Inc. was a manufacturer of clothing products. Finkel was asked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/023620p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While his employer voluntarily paid him benefits under the other plan after that judgment was entered. Providing that where
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/003698.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court found that neither plan was governed by ERISA and therefore dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As both plans were covered by ERISA. The Profit Sharing Trust was funded through a rollover of William's assets from profit sharing and pension plans from two prior jobs. The Profit Sharing Plan provided that distributions from the plan were to be made as a joint and survivor annuity. Distributions from the Pension Trust were to be made as joint and survivor annuities. The assets from these IRAs were distributed to the Insurance Trust. As well as an order compelling the trustees of the Insurance Trust to obtain a refund of inheritance taxes paid on the assets that were transferred to William's IRAs. The District Court held that neither the Profit Sharing Plan nor the Pension Plan was governed by ERISA and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by order entered August 15. Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend this order was denied on October 3. Was substituted for Evelyn as a plaintiff. 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-9152.ma2.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case was taken en banc to clarify the law in our circuit regarding state law preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-9152.ma2.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case was taken en banc to clarify the law in our circuit regarding state law preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1122p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Defendant Appellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company is the surety on a labor and material payment bond purchased by Mele Construction Co. Hartford's bond required prospective claimants who were not in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044514p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Richard Ranke and other similarly situated individuals in this case are former employees of Eastman Kodak Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was an employee of Rohm and Haas Company at the time at issue. Sought to ascertain the amount of lump sum pension to which he would be entitled if he were to retire. Had not been reduced by the amount of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ2MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4609-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Thurman's suit was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). We hold that the district court correctly ruled that Thurman's state law claims were preempted to the extent that he requested expectation damages. These aspects of his state law claims were not related to the plan. Were thus not preempted. We REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Thurman's state law claims to the extent that they are not related to the plan. He was still employed by Pfizer. Thurman was notified that the pension information he had received was incorrect. Human Resources told him in writing that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ2MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4609-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE741F8ADB2041D1882571B6005348A8/$file/0436094.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chuck's principal claim is that the Hewlett Packard Company Deferred Profit Sharing Retirement Plan (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062399p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were rejected by the District Court. We will affirm. Roche is a prescription drug manufacturer. JCI is engaged in the business of integrated facility management. The Appellants are approximately ninety six former employees of Roche who were terminated on November 3. The Appellants were terminated after Roche decided to outsource some functions of its Technical Services Division to JCI. The majority of the Appellants were hired by JCI in the same position that they held at Roche. Inc. was a subsidiary of Johnson Controls. Inc. as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2128.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hender</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. The verdict was affirmed on appeal in <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0B553D51AB385CE88256DB7007AC345/$file/0056431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. 2003 are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case. Stern cross appeals the district court's determination that Stern's pension plan funds are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate. We must determine whether the transfer of proceeds from an Individual Retirement Account (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8785D1924F662F3A88256CC200811F7B/$file/0056431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stern cross appeals the district court's determination that Stern's pension plan funds are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate. We must determine whether the transfer of proceeds from an Individual Retirement Account (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE0A890A9E9F69B988256E5300780E9C/$file/0235853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Oremet Defendants' decision to comply with the lawful terms of the Plan following the merger was entirely consistent with ERISA's fiduciary requirements. Because the Union and Key are neither fiduciaries nor de facto fiduciaries. Statutory Framework ERISA is designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-5189.man.html">PERRINO V. S. BELL TEL. & TEL. CO. (4/20/2000, NO. 98-5189)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This appeal concerns whether plaintiffs who bring a federal suit based on claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-5189.man.html">PERRINO V. S. BELL TEL. & TEL. CO. (4/20/2000, NO. 98-5189)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This appeal concerns whether plaintiffs who bring a federal suit based on claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0988p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is the plan administrator of PNG's pension plan. The gravamen of Taylor's claim is that statements regarding the retroactivity of the pension plan's early retirement incentive program. Who was not a member of the Annuities and Benefits Committee. Address the important question presented whether a plan administrator is liable for statements made by individuals who have been selected as non fiduciary agents by the plan administrator to assist it in discharging its fiduciary obligation to administer a plan. Even though such individuals are formally employees of the plan sponsor. Who is not a fiduciary. Conclude that the defendants are responsible for any material misstatements made by Burgunder to Taylor regarding possible changes in PNG's pension plan since. Burgunder was acting. We will. The named fiduciary and plan administrator of the pension plan is the Annuities and Benefits Committee. Which is made up of employees of both CNG and PNG. The members of this committee are the relevant defendants in this action.[fn1] Burgunder was not a member of the Annuities and Benefits Committee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-3357.opa.html">SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1635p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<u>Senior District Judge</u>. <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/95-3357.opa.html">SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0708p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue of this case is whether pension plan participants whose plan is merged with another pension plan are entitled by law to receive only the defined benefits that they had actually accrued under the previous plan or are also entitled to receive a share of any surplus assets in their pension plan. Appellants allege that under two distinct sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-4121.htm">97-4121 -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH INC. -- 08/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1650.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whiteley</U> and <U>Scibelli and Whiteley</U> were on brief for appellants. <P> <U>Frederick J. Worcester</U> were on brief for defendants and cross claim defendants appellees.</P> <P> <U>Dennis J. Levinson</U> were on brief for plaintiff appellee.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055461p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us for the second time on appeal. Holding that the relief the plaintiffs sought was not available to them. We will affirm. I We have previously set forth the basic facts in this litigation. A The plaintiffs are former employees of Paradyne Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1362.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellees. Bolduc sent a letter to Hampers proposing terms for a new employment agreement with Grace that was to include membership in the W.R. This agreement provided Hampers with more benefits than he was previously entitled to under the NMC qualified plan because at that time NMC did not have a supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) of its own. Before the agreement was executed. Providing Hampers with a cash benefit equal to what they estimated he would have received under the Grace qualified plan and Grace SERP. Although these changes were acceptable to Hampers. He learned from Grace that he was not a participant in the NMC SERP. His aggregate retirement annuity (from the combined NMC qualified plan and NMC SERP) would have totaled more than $500. Asserting that he was wrongly denied participation in the NMC SERP. Hampers contended that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0927p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though the payout period was more than nine years. No federal appellate court has addressed this precise issue of statutory interpretation under the MPPAA although two other courts of appeals have decided cases which suggest possible. I. The Statutory Scheme The MPPAA was enacted by Congress in 1980 as an amendment to ERISA to insure the financial stability of multiemployer pension plans by imposing mandatory liability on employers withdrawing from a pension plan. The principal manner in which these goals are effectuated by the act is by the imposition of withdrawal liability on an employer who withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan in the proportionate share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits. The first installment payment on the schedule is due within sixty days of the plan sponsor's demand. The employer shall not be considered to have withdrawn from a plan solely because an employer suspends contributions during a labor dispute involving its employees. Plus accrued interest on the total outstanding liability from the due date of the first payment which was not timely made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/995791.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Texas Pacific Group's agreement to restrict the hiring of certain employees upon Lucent's sale of Paradyne Corp. was a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. W e hold the no hire agreement was a valid covenant not to compete that was reasonable in scope and therefor e not a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Act. Also we hold plaintif fs have presented sufficient prima facie evidence of AT&T and Lucent's specific intent to interfer e with an ERISA funded employee pension fund to survive summary judgment on the ERISA S 510 claim. The pr emise for the hiring bar was AT&T's belief that one of Paradyne's most marketable assets was its skilled employees. Was considered essential for the sale of Paradyne. Were pr ecluded from seeking re employment at any other AT&T division or affiliate after the trivestiture. This
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/95-5016.html">RESOLUTION TRUST CORP. V. FINANCIAL INST. RETIREMENT FUND<BR></A><BR>
The issue presented by this case is whether the Resolution Trust Corporation. Is a multiple employer pension benefit plan under ERISA. The fund is a single plan. The plan was established in 1943. Its corpus is comprised of assets which fluctuate in value in accord with economic trends. Sooner was deemed to have withdrawn from FIRF. The value of Sooner's FECO credit was approximately $4.1 million. FIRF claimed it was prohibited by ERISA from distributing the FECO credits to RTC or any employer for non pension related purposes. Judgment in the amount of $4.6 million was entered in favor of RTC. 29 U.S.C. 1103(c)(1). stream of income for pensioners and their dependents.2 Because RTC will remove the FECO credits from the pension fund and place them in the U.S. FIRF asserts the exclusive benefit rule is violated. The district court held Guidry and Patterson were distinguishable because they involved the anti alienation rule. FIRF argues this distinction is irrelevant. Contending both the anti alienation rule and the exclusive benefit rule are designed to effectuate the congressional policy of assuring pension assets are used only for the benefit of employees and their families.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3907.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was 52 at the time. Whether there was any immediate prospect that the firm would offer a voluntary separation package in his department. Beach knew that ComEd was reorganizing department by department and that it sometimes offered sweeteners. The company is not going to offer your department a package. It just will not happen. That was the essence of everything I got.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2202.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procter & Hoar were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Rhode Island. Treating longshoremen who had already retired less favorably than those who were still working. From 1976 (when the pension plan was reorganized as an ERISA plan) through 1983. The pension plan was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/01-10829.opn.html">GILBERT V. ALTA HEALTH & LIFE INS. CO. (12/27/2001, NO. 01-10829)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that Alabama's bad faith law is not saved from preemption by the saving clause. That a sole shareholder can be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/01-10829.opn.html">GILBERT V. ALTA HEALTH & LIFE INS. CO. (12/27/2001, NO. 01-10829)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that Alabama's bad faith law is not saved from preemption by the saving clause. That a sole shareholder can be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-1069.htm">97-1069 -- BRONK V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH INC. -- 04/07/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983191P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To the extent such findings are relevant to our decision today. Are not clearly erroneous. Riley all were senior executives with Bull Moose Tube Company (BMT). When BMT was acquired by Caparo. The first is a phantom stock plan (PSP) created around the time Caparo acquired BMT in order to give seven members of BMT's management. As we will explain in more detail infra. The other plan at issue in this case is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Riley was a vice president of the newlyformed Caparo Steel Company. Are essentially controlled by Swraj Paul. Riley all were terminated in March 1996. Stock that the plaintiffs allege was redistributed to them after it was redeemed by another original PSP participant.4 Moreover. Which is essentially identical to the BMT plan.). It is not clear to this Court why the Company has not yet paid the plaintiffs at least part of what they claim they are owed. The Company acknowledges obligations due the plaintiffs under the PSP:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0806p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is owned by Capital Health Systems. We hold that John Hancock is not responsible either for Capital Health's inaccurate representations made to its employees or for any additional recovery under John Hancock's clearly stated policy. We further hold that Capital Health is liable under the alternative theories of breach of fiduciary duty and equitable estoppel. I. The historical facts of this case are not in dispute. Up to the amount they were currently receiving. Curcio was not a member of this group.[fn2] One year later Capital Health wanted to extend to all employees the opportunity to purchase the same supplemental coverage from John Hancock as offered to the frozen group. The presentations clearly represented to the employees that this option was available
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1635p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we are again called on to interpret the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2090.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The law in this circuit is well established. The plaintiffs) are three of the 347 Continental employees who accepted the early retirement package (the early retirees). Continental was acquired by CNA Financial Corporation (CNA). A welfare benefit that was offered to all retirees. It is the nature of this difference that is at issue here. Accompanying the VSRP were explanatory materials. The potential early retirees were also told. The plaintiffs are three of the 347 Continental employees who No. 03 2090 3 accepted early retirement under the VSRP in early 1992. Continental was acquired by CNA in 1995. The plaintiffs complained by telephone to CNA officials and were told that the Plan Administrator's decision was appropriate and final. The district court found that the plaintiffs were excused on grounds of futility from the requirement that they exhaust their own administrative claims. The district court was un 1 Count I. Which was essentially redundant of Count II. Was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. 4 No. 03 2090 willing to allow them to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board of Trustees of the pension fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94smith.html">SMITH V. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. BOARD SMITH V. CIRCUIT JUDGE: THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALL DEFENDANTS IN THIS CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT. WE AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART. I. PLAINTIFF APPELLANT ROBERT SMITH ("SMITH") WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT APPELLEE AMERICA'S FIRST CREDIT UNION ("THE CREDIT UNION") FROM JANUARY 18. AMONG WHOM ARE MEMBERS OF THE CERTIFIED PLAINTIFF CLASS. DEFENDANT APPELLEE NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD ("THE ADMINISTRATION"). THE ESSENCE OF SMITH'S COMPLAINT IS THAT THE CREDIT UNION IS LIABLE FOR RETROACTIVELY AMENDING EACH OF THESE THREE PLANS IN A MANNER THAT REDUCED THE PARTICIPANTS' ACCRUED BENEFITS IN VIOLATION OF ERISA.[2] IN ADDITION. SMITH ASSERTS THAT PRINCIPAL HAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CREDIT UNION AND IS. HE WAS AN IMPROPER CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RULE OF 90 PLAN."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2555_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded that the terms of the Plan violated ERISA because the COLA was an accrued benefit as ERISA defines that term. BACKGROUND No. 06 2555 The Plan is a defined benefit pension plan under § 3(35) of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(35). Is thus the result of this formula. The Plan explains that the lump sum distribution is the actuarial equivalent of the accrued benefit. COLAs are commonly applied to annuities in order to account for inflation. An annuitant's payments will increase each year at a level commensurate with the calculated rate. While participants who choose to receive their pension payments as an annuity are automatically entitled to a COLA. Williams was employed by Rohm and Haas from 1969 until his termination in 1997. No. 06 2555 3 he was entitled to his accrued benefit under the Plan upon his termination. Williams filed a class action suit against Rohm and Haas alleging that he was wrongfully denied benefits under the Plan because his lump sum distribution did not include the present value of the COLA he would have received had he chosen to receive his pension in the form of monthly annuity payments.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110829.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that Alabama's bad faith law is not saved from preemption by the saving clause. That a sole shareholder can be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94smith.html">SMITH V. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. BOARD SMITH V. CIRCUIT JUDGE: THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALL DEFENDANTS IN THIS CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT. WE AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART. I. PLAINTIFF APPELLANT ROBERT SMITH ("SMITH") WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT APPELLEE AMERICA'S FIRST CREDIT UNION ("THE CREDIT UNION") FROM JANUARY 18. AMONG WHOM ARE MEMBERS OF THE CERTIFIED PLAINTIFF CLASS. DEFENDANT APPELLEE NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD ("THE ADMINISTRATION"). THE ESSENCE OF SMITH'S COMPLAINT IS THAT THE CREDIT UNION IS LIABLE FOR RETROACTIVELY AMENDING EACH OF THESE THREE PLANS IN A MANNER THAT REDUCED THE PARTICIPANTS' ACCRUED BENEFITS IN VIOLATION OF ERISA.[2] IN ADDITION. SMITH ASSERTS THAT PRINCIPAL HAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CREDIT UNION AND IS. HE WAS AN IMPROPER CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RULE OF 90 PLAN."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D772F220FE8E9B7D88256B5D005C2711/$file/0015884.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a participant in the UFCWNorthern California Employers Joint Pension Plan (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3674.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As distinct from the entity that provides the pensions required by the contract we use the word in both senses and trust to context to disambiguate) is what is called a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011608.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The claims were denied by the plan administrator who refused to recognize the validity of the amendment on the ground that it was adopted by an improper body. The employees filed suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and were granted an interlocutory judgment declaring that the 1992 amendment was valid after a three day bench trial. I. The much litigated facts serving as background to this case have been the subject of numerous decisions. Are three former employees of District No.1 MEBA/NMU (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1406p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge We are called upon to determine the scope of the fiduciary duty owed by a broker dealer of securities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-7155a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Paul J. Brown were on the brief for amicus curiae Erisa Industry Commit tee. One such arrangement was embod ied in an Employee Benefits Agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-6643.man.html">WHITT V. SHERMAN INT'L CORP. (7/30/1998, NO. 97-6643)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that Whitt's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. We hold that Whitt's state causes of action are not preempted by ERISA. We VACATE the district court's order granting summary judgment and REMAND to the district court with instructions to REMAND this case to state court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Constar was a minority shareholder of Sherman. Phantom stock is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976643.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that Whitt's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. We hold that Whitt's state causes of action are not preempted by ERISA. I. A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Constar was a minority shareholder of Sherman. Phantom stock is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-6643.man.html">WHITT V. SHERMAN INT'L CORP. (7/30/1998, NO. 97-6643)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that Whitt's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. We hold that Whitt's state causes of action are not preempted by ERISA. We VACATE the district court's order granting summary judgment and REMAND to the district court with instructions to REMAND this case to state court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Constar was a minority shareholder of Sherman. Phantom stock is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976643.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that Whitt's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. We hold that Whitt's state causes of action are not preempted by ERISA. I. A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Constar was a minority shareholder of Sherman. Phantom stock is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that this suit under ERISA was barred under New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine because Fornarotto's previously filed tort action was sufficiently related to the instant action to trigger application of that doctrine. For the reasons that follow we will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Fornarotto was employed by the New Jersey American Water Company (a subsidiary of American Waterworks Company. Fornarotto was eligible to participate in the company's pension plan which provided different levels of benefits to eligible employees. The employee becomes disabled and is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/991619.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. They challenge the District Court's ruling that a legal memorandum they sought to discover was protected by the doctrine of work product immunity. We will affirm in part. Ostensibly raising an issue as to whether the District Court erred by concluding that Appellants were entitled to any interest at all. 165 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that ERISA permits actions to recover interest on wrongly withheld benefits even where the benefits were paid before litigation). We hold that the argument is not properly presented in this appeal. Are participants in. The Plan was amended so that the offset requirement applied only to non plan pension benefits
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4110.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. As required for (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was promised a pension. He had been told the earliest start date he could expect was May 1. Failing to commence monthly benefit payments by the time suit was filed. Texaco removed the case to federal court on the ground that it was preempted by ERISA. He was hired and promised a pension benefit before ERISA took effect on January 1. Karls objects to the denial of his motion for remand for two related reasons:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1535_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was 18 years old when he started and 29 when he left. Who is now 57. Believes the company will owe him a pension when he turns 65. He has lost at every step along the way and is here today appealing the district court's granting of the defendants' (Ameritech Corporation and the 2 No. 05 1535 Ameritech Pension Plan) motion to dismiss. The name at the time Silvernail was an employee). Pension eligibility was based on years of employment. Both sides agree that Silvernail's relatively brief employment at a young age would not have qualified him for a pension under the 1967 plan. Clearly would have become eligible for a deferred service pension had he worked for Illinois Bell until September 1980. Thinks his vesting period should have begun not at age 22. This is a question of law. Our review is de novo. 2 is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995022.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Since Matthew Wood was disabled. Issues Several questions are presented to us on appeal: 1) Is complete preemption of a state claim that is subject to Section 510 of ERISA warranted even if the state claim prays for relief arguably not provided for in Section 502(a) of ERISA? 2. Have jurisdiction? The District Court read that claim as an assertion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4484_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GM had suspended the payment of these 2 No. 05 4484 benefits and was treating the amount otherwise due to the plaintiffs each month as reimbursement for past disability and pension plan overpayments. There is no dispute as to the essential facts. Smith were hourly employees of GM and. Were members of the International Union. Were governed under the collective bargaining agreements between GM and the UAW. Both pension and disability benefit payments otherwise due to plan participants were to be reduced by an amount equivalent to the federal social security benefits to which the employee was entitled. That award would be considered as having been received throughout the time period for which social security eligibility was established. The plan thus would be considered to have overpaid for that period. Recovery of Benefit Overpayments If it is determined that any benefit(s) paid to an employe[e] under a General Motors benefit plan . . . should not have been paid or should have been paid in a lesser amount. I immediately will furnish to the GM Pension Plan Administration Center evidence of the effective date of my entitlement to such benefit. ....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE0MzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1435-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That no modification of the pension plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/95a1238p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This consolidated class action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants breached section 1104(a)'s fiduciary duties and as to whether the defendants are entitled to section 1104(c)'s protection. We will. Vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Each plan permitted an employee to contribute a percentage of his or her compensation into an individual account and to direct that it be invested in any one or a number of funds that were comprised of different types of investments. A GIC is a contract under which the issuer is obligated to repay the principal deposit at a designated future date and to pay interest at a specified rate over the duration of the contract. The Sperry Plan and the BEST Plan were consolidated to form the Unisys Savings Plan. Was closed to new contributions. Assets invested in the Fixed Income Fund were reinvested in the new Insurance Contract Fund.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30533.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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. We decline to consider the issues raised by the defendants in their letter submitted under Rule 28(j) that were neither raised in the district court or argued in their initial brief. 2 1 I. John and Martha Herring were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (conspiracy). Martha Herring was charged and convicted of two additional counts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 157(1) and (2). Were also charged with conspiracy. HCC served as the Agencies' home office and was owned by and employed the Herrings. A cost report was prepared by each Agency and submitted to Medicare. All costs associated with running the Agencies are included on the reports. Medicare reimburses only those costs that are reasonable. Certain employee appreciation expenditures are costs allowed by Medicare. The cost reports are used to derive pay rates for different care services.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Union is the exclusive bargaining agent for its approximately 350 members. All of whom are employed by the Kalamazoo facility of Checker Motor Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002918.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by Orrin T. We will reverse. We do not think the fact that DuPont's Associate Medical Director was involved in evaluating Skretvedt's claim both during the initial determination and on appeal creates a procedural impropriety that heightens the standard of review. 2 Despite the demanding arbitrary and capricious test. We conclude that the medical evidence of job related stress that Skretvedt presented clearly demonstrates that he is eligible for disability benefits under Dupont's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0339p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which termination will result in the participants' receipt of $100 million in retirement benefits that they would not otherwise receive in the absence of PBGC's termination of the plans and guarantee of the benefits vested under them. LLC (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/690A56A6ADFAD851882571E7007FD392/$file/0455582.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The facts of the case are undisputed. The accounts were included in a fund invested and managed by the plan's trustees. 11224 MILLER v. The two plans were linked in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU5MDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5904-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When he learned in 1989 he was suffering from a serious. Was still alive and applied for a pension benefit based on 34 years and four months of credit. Tocker was eligible for service credit only for the 22 years and six months from September 1967 until March 1. Plaintiff claimed he had not been told in 1990 that he was being terminated and would therefore be ineligible for pension benefits. The company name was later simplified to Kraft Foods Inc. in 1995. The plan is now administered by Kraft Foods North America. The merger and the name changes are irrelevant to the issues in this case. Tocker is now represented by counsel on this appeal. Giving deference to the administrative committee's finding that Tocker was terminated in March 1990. Where the administrators are given discretion under the terms of a benefit plan. As they are in this case. We refer throughout the opinion to the statute as codified prior to the enactment of the Pension Protection Act. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 a claim is not the applicant's to open.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0871p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Talcott is entitled to receive one half of the pension benefits which Hullett has accrued as of December 31. If she remains unmarried at the time Hullett actually retires or is required to begin receiving pension benefits. I. Hullett and Talcott were married on August 19. Hullett was a fully vested member of Towers. Contending that the Agreement contained an error in that the pension was suppose to be valued as of December 31. Of which value Talcott was suppose to receive fifty percent. Talcott responded that the Agreement was correct as written. 100% of all income received from the pension plan was to be payable to Talcott upon Hullett's retirement and receipt of benefits. That the valuation date was deleted in return for Talcott receiving a full 50% of whatever pension was ultimately payable to Hullett. Whereby the parties agreed that Hullett would receive a pension equal to the one he would have earned under the Plan had he remained employed with Towers. Determined that the Agreement was a QDRO[fn3] within the meaning of ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/983812P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The nine plaintiffs were all employees at the Company's Wellston. Benefits were extended to a group of individuals who were close to eligibility for early retirement under the Pension Plan then in effect. Was ratified by the Union The Honorable Ronald E. The plant was shut down later that year. Paragraph 7(b) of the Closing Agreement proposed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/952901.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. *Senior Judge Hall heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). At issue is a $14.2 million portion of the surplus of an Employee Retirement Plan (ERP) which Cone Mills over funded. That under the foregoing theory they are entitled to recovery of the remainder of a $69 million surplus. 2 This is the third time this court has heard this case.1 As a divided en banc court we vacated a panel decision and vacated an earlier district court decision in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that Cone Mills had breached its fiduciary duty in contravention of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Finding that Cone Mills was not unjustly enriched where the pension plan and ERISA entitled Cone Mills to the surplus pension funds at issue. They claim that the district court's decision for the defendant on the issue of reliance is based on facts contrary to those found in the initial trial and affirmed by this court en banc.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3360_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is helpful to distinguish
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2025p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fotta appeals the dismissal of the 2 ERISA count and the Trustees cross appeal to have the state claims dismissed with prejudice. Fotta was covered by a United Mine Workers administered pension plan that provided. Arguing that the first count failed to state a claim under ERISA and that the remaining state law counts were preempted by S 514(a) of ERISA. Stating that there was no longer federal jurisdiction over the case. The district courts that have addressed the question are divided: two have held such claims for interest non cognizable under ERISA. Is the means by which an ERISA plan beneficiary is authorized to sue to recover benefits under the plan. A. We disagree with the Trustees' contention that the lack of an express provision for interest in ERISA is necessarily fatal to Fotta's claim. This is. The development of federal common law under ERISA is appropriate only when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTExNDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-1146-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue remaining in the case was whether Scrufari. Who was also employed by the Funds. Are as follows. The Funds were established pursuant to trust agreements among the Fund Trustees. All of whom are fiduciaries of the Funds. Who was the General Business Agent of Local 280. Two votes were taken and both resulted in a deadlock. Sanoian raised again the possibility of appointing Scrufari as the Plan Manager of the Funds and noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAxMTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0112-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court granted Swede partial summary judgment on his claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021336.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of his complaint was a charge that defendants had prevented him from withdrawing his share of one of the benefits plans in time to take advantage of a high stock price. I. Rego was employed by Westvaco Corporation from 1980 to 1997. The parties have stipulated that both the Savings Plan and the Pension Plan are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1874.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dyer was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. CMI claimed that because CMI provides workers' compensation benefits through a welfare benefit plan that is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/94-9011.wpd.html">HAWKINS V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1) and now reverse. Hawkins (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1149a.htm">97-1149A -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. SKEEN -- 12/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
The liability was not incurred by the bankruptcy estate and did not qualify as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/985245.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan sought a declaration that Robichaud was not entitled to pre retirement survivor's annuity benefits of her former husband. The district court held that the amended order was not a qualified domestic relations order capable of conferring on Robichaud the benefits she seeks. Robichaud and Samaroo were divorced on October 25. If husband were to retire at this time. He was covered under the AT&T Management Pension Plan. Which would have begun. There were. If there is no surviving spouse. There is no annuity. It was unclear whether state divorce decrees could effectively convey a share in one spouse's pension benefits to the other spouse. Although the Retirement Equity Act was not in effect on October 25. There was simply no pre retirement survivor's annuity payable in respect of Samaroo.2 2. She suggests in her reply brief that the original decree could have been read to give her that right. Robichaud tells us the only issue in this case is the validity of the amended order. Therefore we conclude that the adequacy of the original decree is not before us.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1948p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that pre merger notice of the debt owed by the non surviving local was not required and that the surviving local union was liable for the debt. I. The facts of this case are undisputed. Teamsters Local 513 was a labor union which represented certain employees in the Philadelphia metropolitan area for purposes of collective bargaining. Both of the local unions were unincorporated associations. Littlejohn was covered by the Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4592_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We'll have to sketch some background to make this ERISA controversy. When a participant in a defined benefit pension plan is given a choice between taking pension benefits as an annuity or in a lump sum. Which is the amount of the lump sum. The greater the value of an annuity to him (because it will be received. For more years) and hence the larger the actuarially equivalent lump sum will be as well. Since it is merely the discounted present value of the annuity. Reduces the value of future receipts (they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1960.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. The question at issue is whether a 1994 amendment to the plan. Or only to those who are still employed when they retire. The Plan has been amended a number of times since it was established. These amendments have periodically been incorporated in restatements of the Plan. The 1995 Restatement is at issue in this case. It was preceded by a 1976 Restatement. Meaning that the form of the Plan document complies with the Internal Revenue Code requirements for qualified plans.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-15405.man.html">BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)<BR></A><BR>
The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-15405.man.html">BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)<BR></A><BR>
The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BA7E556D075EA0488256E5A00707C12/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D10545B0451BEDFA882571680058E542/$file/0455582.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The facts of the case are undisputed. The accounts were included in a fund invested and managed by the plan's trustees. The two plans were linked in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2457FDB8B7C15C2688256A9C005962B2/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-6056.wpd.html">CHILES V. CERIDIAN CORP.<BR></A><BR>
The word defendents' is misspelled and should read defendants'. The issues presented are whether the plaintiffs have vested rights to company paid health insurance as long as they remain disabled and. The district court found that these benefits were not vested and that the employer properly exercised its right to discontinue paying the premiums. Our inquiry is guided by these documents and federal ERISA law. Our jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. 1291. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are former employees of Imprimis. Which we are told describe in language comprehensible to the average participant the terms and conditions of the plan. Plaintiffs had all been deemed disabled and were receiving long term disability benefits under the Control Data Long Term Disability Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9287_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of this panel and voted with the majority. This appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND Appellant Building Service 32B J Pension Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1427p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That it was seriously considering changes in its pension benefits program. We will apply the formulation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1567.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. BACKGROUND The genesis of this appeal was a lawsuit brought by the United States Secretary of Labor (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0044p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED in Case No. 98 6398 as well as in Case No. 98 6416. Were laid off from their jobs and their employment terminated effective September of 1993. Alleging that their layoffs were in violation of the ADEA and ERISA § 510. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED in Case No. 98 6398 as well as in Case No. 98 6416. that Defendant failed to pay him overtime in accordance with his alleged non exempt status. Finding that Cunningham was exempt from statutory overtime requirements as a matter of law. Stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5022.html">BRANCH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1567.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mogul & Singal were on brief for appellant. Frawley with whom Brann & Isaacson was on brief for appellee. *Of the District of North Dakota. Holding that 1) appellee has neither made out the elements of an estoppel claim nor established that his estoppel claim is actionable under ERISA. Appellee Donald Law was employed by the accounting firm of Arthur Young & Co.3 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1276p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is such power sufficiently broad to permit the district court to override a subrogation provision in an ERISA regulated plan on the ground that the plan would be unjustly enriched if it were to be enforced as written. 000.00 under the terms of its health plan before plaintiffs settled their malpractice claims was not entitled to full reimbursement. The district court ruled that the health plan's subrogation provision could not be given effect because Federal Express would receive an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCD5B0E9FD2E964688256DA2005A70D6/$file/0215618.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether an IRS claim for delinquent taxes secured outside of bankruptcy by a lien on a debtor's interest in an ERISA qualified pension plan is secured in bankruptcy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/041720P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-7040a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is brought by the Boards of Trustees of two employee benefit plans. (We will refer to the two plans as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1006p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Trustees argue that the district court erred in: (1) determining that the Welfare Fund was not legally entitled to recover benefits paid to an ineligible employee in reliance on false statements made by Starlite. (2) concluding that only current Starlite employees could have colorable claims against the Pension Fund for benefits. (3) concluding that two current employees do not have colorable claims for pension benefits. Because the district court correctly determined that the Welfare Fund was not entitled to recover benefits paid to the ineligible employee. We will affirm the district court's order in part. Because we conclude that the district court failed to make factual findings and conclusions of law sufficient to determine whether the past and present employees of Starlite have colorable claims for pension and welfare benefits. We will reverse and remand on the remaining issues raised by the Trustees. I. The Local 4 69 Welfare Fund and the Local 4 69 Pension Fund (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021273.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001082.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In which appellants were not selected to participate. I. Appellants are employees and former employees of DuPont's Cape Fear facility in Leland. All appellants are participants in DuPont's tax qualified pension plan. These participants are entitled to a pension benefit calculated in accordance with defined formulas based on length of service. The purpose of these VSPs was to reduce positions at the Cape Fear site by encouraging employees to separate or retire early. The VSPs were implemented by plan amendments to the P&RP and were part of. The VSP benefits were required to comply with the complex nondiscrimination rules applicable under section 401(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code because the P&RP is a tax qualified retirement plan. VSP benefits were limited to a non discriminatory group of employees. VSP Prime did not involve a plan amendment to the P&RP and was not part of the P&RP. VSP Prime was an entirely separate plan. Intended for application in those instances where use of the regular VSPs was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1786.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</U> was on brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on brief. Massachusetts was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court terminated the action by entering judgment on the pleadings.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063728P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. a Delaware Corporation its debts unless the pension plan is terminated. PBGC responded that ERISA required Falcon to demonstrate that the requirements of the Reorganization Test were met on a plan by plan basis as opposed to the aggregate basis proposed by Falcon. Unless the plan is terminated. The employer will be unable to pay all its debts pursuant to a Reorganization Plan and will be unable to continue in business outside the Chapter 11 reorganization process and the court approves the termination. Noting those projections were made under the guarantee of a $50 million cash infusion from third party investors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0335n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that we should reverse the district court's judgment because the remedy is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/006016P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether the Debtor's individual retirement annuity is an individual retirement account within the scope of Iowa Code Section 627.6(8)(f) which the Debtor can exempt from property of his bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-1165.htm">98-1165 -- KAFERLY V. U.S. WEST TECHNOLOGIES -- 09/01/1999<BR></A><BR>
Because we find that the underlying decision of the Employee Benefits Committee to deny benefits to Kaferly was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The dispute in this case is straightforward. Contends that she is entitled to Term of Employment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/002813up.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's order granting summary judgment to Ryan. We will. I. Facts Ryan is a former member of Asbestos Workers Union Local 42 and a participant in the Local's Pension Plan. The first page of the Summary Plan Description (SPD) states that the Plan provides each participant with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3752_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a class action on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in a pension plan for employees of Guidant Corporation. Guidant was bought last year by Boston Scientific. As each share was worth $22.49) of stock in Boston Scientific. The fiduciaries are various employees and board members of Guidant. All of whom were under the company's control (as ERISA permits. As was the ESOP. So for the sake of simplicity we shall pretend that Guidant is the only defendant and the only fiduciary. October 2004 to November 2005 was a period. When according to the complaint the price of Guidant stock was inflated by a fraud committed by the company's management. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the named plaintiffs have no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/012394p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sole issue raised by defendant Andrew Lutyk is whether the record of a non jury trial justified piercing the corporate veil of the American Elevator Company to impose personal liability on him as its sole shareholder for unpaid contributions the corporation owed to health. We will affirm. I. Defendant Andrew Lutyk was the president. American was obligated to make monthly contributions to various benefit and pension funds. American was also required to make certain wage deductions from the employees' salaries. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-4033.wpd.html">LINDSAY V. THIOKOL CORP.<BR></A><BR>
The issue on this appeal is one of pure statutory interpretation: whether ERISA. The use of the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0168p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kolkowski contends he is owed money under the company's Employee Protection Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B307D1805CDA43FC88256E5A00707CD0/$file/9955519.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the Riverside plan in violation of ERISA's anticutback rule. We conclude that he is correct. I. The material facts of this case are undisputed. Riverside's retirement plan was subsequently amended. Is that the terms of his second retirement under the amended plan impermissibly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E3BE2ADE24FD421688256ACA005A4A47/$file/9955519.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the Riverside plan in violation of ERISA's anticutback rule. We conclude that he is correct. I. The material facts of this case are undisputed. Riverside's retirement plan was subsequently amended. Is that the terms of his second retirement under the amended plan impermissibly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1058.html">EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY V. DONALD RUMSFELD<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Linda S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Director.<span
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991543.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stokes was provided an option to receive a lump sum severance payment or a special retirement option. Contending that he was illegally denied a severance benefit in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5144a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/982052.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is set in the familiar factual pattern of an employee's being denied a more advantageous pension because of a minor shortfall in the required period of service. When Harte's service was terminated. He was nineteen days short of eligibility for the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/023619u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that he was entitled to additional compensation for the year 1996 and that Weinstock had failed to make * The Honorable Berle M. Both of the plans are defined contribution plans that are subject to ERISA. The amount of additional compensation to which Tomasko was entitled. Whether Weinstock was obliged to make a contribution to Tomasko's pension accounts. 1997 constituted the full amount to which he was entitled for work performed in 1996. Was arbitrary and capricious. 4 We agree. We reverse factual conclusions of the district court only if they are clearly erroneous. A plan administrator's decision will be overturned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/023754p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings concerning the applicability of the discovery rule to the debtor's claims against its lawyer's law firm and the law firm's individual shareholders. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in Continental Bank's favor. We will also affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental and the debtor's law firm on the breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA. P.C. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023559P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background It is undisputed that Marion Leonard is entitled to disability benefits for injuries suffered while working for Southwestern Bell. Leonard was placed on leave in 1995 because of her injuries. The employee benefit plans in which she participated were the Southwestern Bell Corporation Disability Income Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-1163.wpd.html">FULLER V. GREAT OAKS MANAGEMENT<BR></A><BR>
Appellant is the trustee of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-4096.html">REICH V. STANGL<BR></A><BR>
Stangl was a party in interest who had engaged in prohibited transactions. Stangl was general partner of the Bowling Property Limited Partnership. Davidson were partners in the S & D Limited Partnership (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063829p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand the case to the District Court for enforcement of the Arbitrator's Award. The MPPAA was enacted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1325p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that reformation is not available and that third party beneficiaries to the underlying agreement are entitled to rely on its plain language notwithstanding that such language was the result of the mistake or negligence of the contracting parties. McCormick argues that these funds are not delinquent because they are sought pursuant to a clause in a collective bargaining agreement that McCormick avers was the result of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033575p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is a by product of corporate America's recent effort to curb costs by. CIGNA proposed amendments to its plan that were to become effective January 1. 2 while long term employees such a s D epenbrock would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-1470.htm">96-1470 -- GARRATT V. WALKER -- 12/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
Because any contribution that an employer might make on behalf of employees (including himself) was completely discretionary. We view it in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Particularly given the employer's assertion in his answer that the plan was to be so construed. <u>See</u> <u>Crouch v. We follow the panel's decision that a SEP is a pension plan within the meaning of ERISA. <u>See</u> <u>Garratt</u>. The employee requested whatever contribution percentage (based upon her salary) that the employer was making on his own behalf. Although it was suggested at oral argument that the employee was seeking an immediate contribution. Such an inference would be contrary to the standard by which we evaluate the record. <p> It is undisputed that the employee was eligible to participate in the SEP plan and that the employee was earning $24. 000 amount was below the employee's 1993 and 1994 compensation level and. The employer conceded that he was asking the employee to take a cut in pay and fund the plan. <u>Id.</u> at 51.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-7091a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1090p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individually and on behalf of all members of the Sperry Class previously certified by the Court whose claims have not been settled James F. We are asked to decide whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty may be maintained under section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4E4FCBCAFCB268888256E5A00707D0E/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB9077B4175DA40088256AE6007F48B3/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052044np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is liable for Prior's supplemental pension benefit. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. Background Cornelius Prior and Jeff Prosser were co CEOs of Atlantic Tele Network. The rest was publicly held. The issue in this case is the allocation after the split up of the obligation to pay Prior's supplemental pension benefit. The supplemental benefit was an unfunded liability. As is necessary in order for [ICC] to be the sponsor and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F66B803E3E2A35F088257060007D917E/$file/0357000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that any state law claims were preempted by ERISA and that the remedy sought was not available under ERISA. Peralta asserts that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or. We conclude that we have jurisdiction and affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. The LTD policy was an employee benefits plan. Peralta was a beneficiary of the plan. Was involved in an automobile accident and suffered serious injuries. Believing that she was covered under HBI's LTD policy. No benefits were paid. June Wozny was HBI's HR manager. Wozny was in charge of the administration of HBI's employee benefits plan. One of her projects was to take
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F2EFC35C3CDFF70882571CA007F9587/$file/0355601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Will Ongman. Which was both the administrator and the funding source of the plan. We have returned to first principles. As we will explain below. This case requires us to consider how a court is to review an ERISA plan administrator's decision when the procedure that produced the decision did not follow all statutory requirements. For the reasons that we will develop. The administrator is not. Only life insurance is at issue in this appeal. The life insurance policy under the plan was originally issued by Home Life Financial Assurance Company. Alta is the successor in interest to Home Life's rights and responsibilities. The insured may request what is commonly referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(HPI) and others were obligated to pay City of Hope for its treatment of Maria D. Diaz was diagnosed with myeloid leukemia in 1992. Diaz was referred by her treating physicians to Memorial Sloane Kettering Hospital in New York City for consultation and further treatment. Diaz was referred by doctors at Memorial Sloane Kettering to City of Hope in Duarte. Diaz was admitted to City of Hope in January 1993. (Triple S) was her primary insurance carrier (offered through her employer) and PCA Health Plan of Puerto Rico (formerly HealthPlus. Inc. or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001611P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stat. § 44 710.13 is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023312u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge The plaintiff union members sued the defendant union pension funds (and the funds' administrators) alleging a breach of fiduciary duty and seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2 plaintiffs were entitled to pension credits they allegedly had accrued years earlier. The plaintiffs in this suit are John Keegan. The defendants are the Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Pension Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1149.htm">97-1149 -- BAYLY V. SKEEN -- 12/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
The liability was not incurred by the bankruptcy estate and did not qualify as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/982052.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is set in the familiar factual pattern of an employee's being denied a more advantageous pension because of a minor shortfall in the required period of service. When Harte's service was terminated. He was nineteen days short of eligibility for the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1277.htm">02-1277 -- KIDNEIGH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/03/2003<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053956P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background The Plan is available to employees of Qwest Communications International Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FB5B4BE3192A66D88256EF9007B65AD/$file/0257096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Relying on evidence that was not part of the administrative record to conclude that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Trust had adopted five year vesting rules applicable to Banuelos. The district court held that Banuelos was not entitled to five year vesting. The Pension Plan The Trust is an express trust established in 1962. The plan is a multi employer defined benefit pension plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Banuelos's right to a pension is governed by the provisions of the pension plan. Banuelos is a retired construction laborer who worked within the area covered by the Trust from 1966 to 1991. Plan One provided for those people who have completed at least 10 years of credited service. The plan sets forth the applicable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-7121a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was severely injured in an automobile accident and as a result required extensive medical care. She is the beneficiary of a health insurance plan administered by CapitalCare. Alleging that Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 CC/BCBS failed to pay benefits due under the plan. It was entitled to reimbursement because Alistaire received compensation from a third party for her injuries. Because Alistaire was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1895.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> was on brief. Allen and Snyder LLP</U> were on brief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The plan was renamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/041902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sued the company after their positions were outsourced. The facilities engineering group at Honeywell was responsible for the design and implementation of onsite construction projects. The utilities engineering group was responsible for maintaining onsite facilities such as heat. Honeywell president Karen Clegg was The Honorable Howard F. That study concluded that the facilities engineering group was too large and did not meet the standards of private industry. The study also found that a significant contributor to the problems in the area was turnover at the senior management level. This information was later confirmed. He recommended that the company address any potential weaknesses and urged Honeywell to consider outsourcing some functions to companies that were stronger in the weaker areas. Honeywell states that Elliott's recommendation was consistent with the DOE policy described in its 1994 report
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/983627.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Counsel for a class of plaintiffs who were successful in their suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054805p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was obligated under the Confirmed Plan of Reorganization to fully fund its Pension Plan to cover an increase in benefits to beneficiaries of so called window pensions in 2000 and 2001 immediately upon Shenango's determination to grant the enhanced benefits. Shenango contends that the Confirmed Plan of Reorganization did not require full funding of the increase in benefits at the time the decision was made to grant the window pensions. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. ] shall have any funding obligations to the Pension Plan as a result of this section 4.04(h). No benefit increases may be provided for any participants in the Pension Plan who are not Class 4B Claimants. The total benefits to be paid to the window pension recipients were valued at $1. A second window pension was considered. Who was also on the Pension Board as the retiree representative. The benefits under this second window pension were valued at $766. The Class 4B retirees asserted that full funding was required under the terms of § 4.04(h) of the Reorganization Plan at the time the determination was made to grant this second window pension to non Class 4B retirees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-7170.opn.html">ENGELHARDT V. PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO. (4/27/1998, NO. 96-7170)<BR></A><BR>
Engelhardt (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1622.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts A & C is a corporation specializing in the transportation and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. A & C is not a union company. If the job were performed by non union employees. Clark that Local 75 could cover his Gary employees and would not have to cover A & C's other employees. While they were answering the questions. Clark testified that he did not know he was signing a collective bargaining agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-7170.opn.html">ENGELHARDT V. PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO. (4/27/1998, NO. 96-7170)<BR></A><BR>
Engelhardt (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1129p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the Plan was underfunded and that it would have to contribute approximately $300. We will reverse the district court's sua sponte order granting summary judgment to the Company and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1349p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand. Distinguishes this case from prior decisions in which we have held a clause reserving the right to terminate or amend unambiguous and controlling. We hold on the facts of this case that the bankruptcy court should have permitted the appellants to present extrinsic evidence in support of their allegations. We will remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court to conduct the necessary evidentiary hearing. I. Appellants are former executives and highly paid personnel of Western Union Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003412.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether a self funded employee benefit plan which purchases stop loss insurance from a third party insurance provider is subject to Pennsylvania laws governing the enforcement of anti subrogation clauses in insurance contracts. W e join our sister circuits in holding a self funded employee benefit plan with stop loss insurance is not deemed an insurance provider under the Employee Retirement Income Security 2 Act. The plan is not subject to state laws regulating insurance contracts. Is a welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plan is designed. The Cover ed Person may incur medical or other charges due to Injuries for which benefits are paid by the Plan. The Covered Person may have a claim against that other person or third party for payment of the medical or other charges. The Plan will be subr ogated to all rights the Covered Person may have against that other person or third party and will be entitled to reimbursement. 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0251p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They argued that his failure to contribute to the funds was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0142p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ohio is the milieu for this appeal. At issue is a significant question of whether federal courts have the ability to hear claims filed pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0062p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0062p.06 employees will have a unique advantage: the self employed individual can pursue a parade of state law claims that are withheld from his employees by preemption. We reverse the judgment of the district court regarding Agrawal's state law claims under the business expense policy because this policy is not part of an ERISA plan and. The claims are not preempted. Agrawal does not have standing to bring an ERISA action. Co. 11
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-2078.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-2078.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1518p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether the Plan Administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying additional accrued benefits to Dewitt's account balance for the 1990 Plan year by distributing Dewitt's benefits on an expedited basis. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer on Dewitt's section 510 claim. I. During the ten years that Carol Dewitt was an employee of Penn Del Directory Corporation. She was a participant in the National Telephone Directory Corporation Profit Sharing Plan. Dewitt was 100% vested in her account under the Plan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012879.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After determining that the Pension Fund was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3143.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 01 3143 Jimmie Johnson was an employee of General Electric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/002529.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we determine that a ruling on a statute of limitations issue in a declaratory judgment action had preclusive effect despite the fact that other requests for a declaration were denied because of unresolved factual matters. We also conclude that the District Court properly found that an ERISA plan was in existence and provided benefits for employees at the time of a plant shutdown. We will reverse in part. Plaintiffs are former non union salaried employees of Crucible. Most of the plaintiffs were at the Midland plant. Most were terminated that year. Which today is a dormant corporation. Those for shutdown benefits were dismissed on appeal because the complaint failed to name the proper defendant. The complaint alleged that plaintiffs were entitled to shutdown benefits pursuant to an Informal Plan that was created by Crucible's 1962 plan. These supplemental benefits were to be paid monthly until the recipient reached the age when Social Security benefits became available. The claim for Parity Plan benefits was based on management's alleged promise to equalize plant shutdown benefits between union and non union employees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0318p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Marks's state law claims to the extent that they are not related to the plan. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Marks was employed by AT&T Capital Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/023671P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reba Hebert (Hebert) was employed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SW Bell). SBC is the SBC Plan sponsor and administrator. The division to which Hebert was assigned became PTG. The Bell System Pension Plan assets were divided among the newly formed pension plans. We will affirm a district court's grant of summary judgment if the record demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because it is undisputed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971783P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Employers and their employees have brought this interlocutory appeal and cross appeal of the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on claims and cross claims for declaratory relief regarding the employers' interpretations of their ERISA pension plans. To the employers' 1988 interpretations of their plans were time barred. Was not time barred. Because we find that all of the cross claims in this matter are time barred. UP distributed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031600.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Berkshire waived its prior argument that it was not an ERISA fiduciary. Is Berkshire's assertion that the district court erred in finding that Berkshire conceded that it was an ERISA fiduciary with respect to Meszaros' alleged actions. Berkshire argued that appellees' four state law claims were preempted under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) and that it was not an ERISA fiduciary. Appellees claimed that these positions were inconsistent because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-3031.htm">97-3031 -- CAPITAL CITIES/ABC INC. V. RATCLIFF -- 04/17/1998<BR></A><BR>
The Carriers' action was transferred to the District of Kansas. Where it was consolidated with the Star's declaratory judgment action. At issue is whether the Carriers are eligible to receive benefits under the Star's four ERISA plans. We affirm the district court's conclusion that they are not.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/024128np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the union is entitled to restitution under federal common law. W e have appellate jurisdiction over the District Court's final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court ruled that the funds AnheuserBusch received from Local 843 and placed in its own accounts were not assets of the defined benefits plan. Who are members of Local 843. Plan benefits are funded from a common pool of assets (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995028.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have bedeviled the federal courts since considered dicta in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Court instructed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/93-9235.opa.html">ALDRIDGE V. LILY-TULIP, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aldridge v. Finding that the termination of and amendments to Lily's retirement plan were void. The court held that the termination was void because Lily had not adopted a written procedure for amending the plan. The court also held that the termination of and amendments to the plan were void because they retroactively reduced the accrued benefits of the employees. That the Retirement Plan be and hereby is terminated effective December 31. The Plan was underfunded.<p> On the same date that the Board adopted the resolution to terminate the Plan. Benefits were reduced by changing the calculation of the social security offset in the Plan's benefit formula for active employees.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3588_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The IBM Personal Pension Plan is a cash balance defined benefit plan. It is almost. The personal account in a cash balance plan is not separately funded. IBM imputes value to the account in the form of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-9235.opa.html">ALDRIDGE V. LILY-TULIP, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aldridge v. Finding that the termination of and amendments to Lily's retirement plan were void. The court held that the termination was void because Lily had not adopted a written procedure for amending the plan. The court also held that the termination of and amendments to the plan were void because they retroactively reduced the accrued benefits of the employees. That the Retirement Plan be and hereby is terminated effective December 31. The Plan was underfunded.<p> On the same date that the Board adopted the resolution to terminate the Plan. Benefits were reduced by changing the calculation of the social security offset in the Plan's benefit formula for active employees.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963045P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. I. The Plan was established in 1971 as a multiemployer employee benefit plan. The employers that took part in the Plan were Edgerton. Each of the employers are fiduciaries of the Plan
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-8083.htm">00-8083 -- MOFFETT V. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES INC. -- 05/29/2002<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1203.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E7A31B8C2172293882572D400596D67/$file/0456719.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Ioane John Opeta appeals the district court's judgment that he is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054168p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Laher's TIAA CREF retirement annuity is excluded from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). We hold that it is. Will reverse the decision of the District Court and order that the case be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for entry of an order excluding the annuity from the bankruptcy estate. Pre tax contributions were taken from his paycheck and accumulated into a sum that would be used to purchase a contract that would pay him an annuity over time after retirement.1 Salary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5054.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Graham brought suit after she was denied long term disability benefits under a plan administered by Defendant Appellee Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3795.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A procedural chronology will help in framing them. When actually they were employees of the defendants and so were entitled to the health. The suit is certified by the district court as a class action with Morlan the only named plaintiff. Became an asset of the estate in bankruptcy and was not abandoned by the trustee. So when the class was certified. The named plaintiff (Morlan) had no standing to sue because he did not own the claim that he was suing upon. If it was assignable and assigned. If it was not assignable. Morlan rather than the trustee was entitled to sue to enforce it. ERISA requires pension plans to include a provision forbidding the assignment or alienation (these are synonyms. Some types of claim are nonassignable voluntarily but assignable involuntarily. Normally are not assignable. Morlan's claim is in part a claim for pension benefits. In part it is indeed nonassignable. So the dismissal of his suit was improper. It will make a difference on remand whether he can sue on all or only the pension part of his claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4267_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Central States and the Disability Pension Central States is an employee pension benefit plan. Central States is a tax qualified. Not for profit trust fund that is administered by employer and employee trustees. Payment of plan benefits is governed by the Fund's Pension Plan Document particularly. (2) have ten years of Credited Service under the Plan. (2) after completion of 10 years of Credited Service (as defined in Section 3.03) if at least 35 weeks of contributions to the Pension Fund have been made or were required to have been made on behalf of the Participant during each of 5 calendar years of Covered Employment. Or at least 225 weeks of contributions have been made or were required to have been to the Pension Fund on his behalf. Shall be eligible for a Disability Pension Benefit under this Plan if he is entitled to disability benefits payable under Title II of the Social Security Act (as evidenced by a Certificate of Social Insurance Award) or if said Participant has sustained a disability which would satisfy the medical and physical requirements for such Certificate of Social Insurance Award where the Participant did not receive such Certificate for reasons unrelated to his medical and physical condition. (b) . . . (c) Disability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-7233a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was briefed and argued by counsel. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED. That the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed. It is FURTHER ORDERED. 1996) is hereby published as if it were an opinion of our court. The only function the agreement could have performed would have been to serve as the temporary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-6451.html">CANNON V. GROUP HEALTH SERV.<BR></A><BR>
Cannon's claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). I Phyllis Cannon was diagnosed with acute myeloblastic leukemia in September of 1991. She was treated with chemotherapy. Contending the treatment was experimental during a first remission of leukemia. Saez requested the insurers reconsider his request and submitted medical literature in an attempt to demonstrate his proposed treatment was not experimental. Saez also informed the insurers his request needed urgent action because it was critical the ABMT be completed prior to any cancer recurrence. Cannon was not notified until October 10. None was ever administered. She was admitted into the hospital on October 12. Cannon was insured through her employer. Cannon was first diagnosed with leukemia in September 1991. The Blue Lincs HMO plan provided: The following services or procedures are not covered by BlueLincs HMO: . . . . (13) Organ transplants other than skin. Blue Lincs HMO issued an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1556.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. was on brief for appellant. Richardson and Gelinas were on brief for appellees. Misled him by failing to respond adequately to his inquiries about a severance package that was under internal corporate consideration when he retired from the company on May 1. A benefits package for which Vartanian would have otherwise been eligible was approved by the Monsanto Board of Directors on June 28. Having taken a lump sum distribution of all the vested benefits to which he was entitled. That because Vartanian was a plan member at the time 1 Judge Ponsor was at the time a Magistrate Judge. 1994. 2 the alleged misrepresentations were made. Holding that because no enhanced severance package that would have affected Vartanian was under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1146p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coyle was the Chief Financial Officer for Health Corporation of America (HCA) from December 1986 through October 1990. Was in the business of designing. HCA was awarded three contracts by the United Paper Convertors Local 286 Welfare Trust Fund to administer plans providing health care benefits to members of the Paper Convertors Local 286. These are employee benefit plans subject to Title I. The duration of these particular contracts is unclear from the record although it appears that the contracts were renewed prior to their eventual termination in 1990. The companies will be referred to collectively as HCA. Which were calculated at a fixed rate per covered employee per month. All premium payments not disbursed to participating physicians or laboratories or retained as administrative costs were to be returned to the Fund. There was no similar provision for refund of surplus premiums in the Pennsylvania dental contract although the contracts appear to have functioned similarly in all respects. There was no refund of any premiums under any of the contracts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We review the District Court's determinations that: (1) a debtor's right to a surplus generated by a pension plan is a property interest. (2) an amendment to that pension plan that irrevocably decreases the surplus is a transfer of the property interest. (3) the value surrendered and the value gained as a result of the transfer need not be precisely calculated in this instance in order to conclude that they are not reasonably equivalent. In 1995 Fruehauf entered into contracts with several of its top executives that would pay them significant benefits if the Company or its assets were sold. As the benefits would not accrue to the beneficiaries unless they were still employed by Fruehauf at that time. B. The Emergency Board Meeting Fruehauf continued to have financial difficulties. Although the parties dispute what was considered at this meeting. They discussed an amendment (known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/012874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case arises out of an April 1996 Northwest Airlines (Northwest) interpleader of the United States and Mary Taylor (Mary) to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or Mary has priority and is entitled to the benefits of three Northwest sponsored employee benefits plans. Finding Mary's right to the plans under a Texas domestic relations order (DRO) was subject to a prior federal tax lien. BACKGROUND As is often the case. The sequence of events is critical. Where the plans were administered. (3) would have required Northwest to make an extra payment. The IRS and Mary were left to determine who was entitled to the plan proceeds. The IRS claimed its interest in the plan proceeds was first in time. While Mary argued her interest had priority because she was both a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C4B42E95AFE091C882569ED0062201B/$file/9756456.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1999 is hereby amended. The amended opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge D.W. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are six former Pacific Bell employees who claim their employer induced them to retire under an early retirement incentive program by failing to disclose in response to questions that it was seriously considering offering a more favorable program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When asked a question by a participant or beneficiary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B1A8CA93D1DF39388256E5A00707A3C/$file/9756456.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1999 is hereby amended. The amended opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge D.W. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are six former Pacific Bell employees who claim their employer induced them to retire under an early retirement incentive program by failing to disclose in response to questions that it was seriously considering offering a more favorable program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When asked a question by a participant or beneficiary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1870.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on briefs for plaintiff. Mason and Ropes & Gray were on briefs for defendants. We hope that this opinion will bring the matter to a close. Narrow event is enough. The company is a small but successful maker of specialty papers of various kinds. Was given a small increase. Was also involved in two different ventures with his sons. He was discharged in June 1986 a few weeks before his rights under the company pension plan would otherwise have vested. Were for wrongful deprivation of property. That he had been fired on account of his age he was replaced with a younger man and to prevent the vesting of his pension. The gravamen of the remaining counts was that he had been 1ADEA is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Et seq. and ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The ERISA award was $100. The fraud award for the allegedly promised stock was about $315. Biggins was also awarded just under $267. Only nominal damages were awarded. Because the jury found that the age discrimination was willful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1549.htm">96-1549 -- LENON V. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO. -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs' claims are based on a judgment in their favor in a separate action they brought against Wilkinson (the Wilkinson action or case) seeking fringe benefit contributions and other damages under collective bargaining agreements applicable to Wilkinson's work at the Denver International Airport. We conclude it is appropriate to resolve this appeal now rather than wait for proceedings to conclude in the Wilkinson action. <p> On the merits. Agree that the type of damages plaintiffs seek are not covered under the surety bond. Was required to use union labor on work it performed under subcontract at the Denver International Airport in Colorado. Plaintiffs are the same in both this case and the Wilkinson action. Plaintiff trustees are the named fiduciaries of four multiemployer welfare and pension benefit plans as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1195p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue presented is whether § 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTA3NDItY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-0742-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/013300P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Bond is a retired union carpenter. He is a participant in the Twin City Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund (the Plan). The Plan was amended to limit the work a retiree could do while still receiving benefits. The participant's sole remedy is to submit the claim to binding arbitration. The Board found that Bond was indeed covered by the Plan's recent amendments. He argued that while the arbitrator's decision to split the costs of arbitration was consistent with the Plan. There is some question as to whether Bond in fact paid half of the costs. Any discount subsequently granted to Bond is irrelevant. 2 1 DISCUSSION Before reaching the issue of whether Bond was denied a reasonable opportunity for a full and fair review. Recent amendments to the regulations confirm that § 1133 is meant to apply to all claims procedures. This reading is consistent with the United States Department of Labor's interpretation of ERISA. Are still within the purview of § 1133. Because the Department of Labor's interpretation is consistent with § 1133.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1517p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal raises questions concerning the scope of the fiduciary duties of a plan trustee under ERISA when the trustee is resigning. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as this appeal is from a final order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The material facts are not in dispute. Ream was an employee of JLC Construction Co. Ream was a participant in the plan with a 100% vested account. The trustee's duties were limited to receiving contributions. The trustee could be liable for its actions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992181.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mary Helen is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest because of the general rule that interest follows principal. The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded with instructions to calculate the amount of prejudgment interest owed to Mary Helen. The agreements are collectively referred to as the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreements (NBCWAs). Mary Helen was a signatory to at least two of these agreements: the 1946 Welfare and Retirement Fund and the 1950 NBCWA. The agreements were revised in 1974 and 1978. Though by this time Mary Helen was no longer actively mining coal and thus was not a party to either agreement. 4 MARY HELEN COAL v. The Supreme Court held that the Coal Act was unconstitutional as applied to Eastern Enterprises. Concluded that the Coal Act premiums were not amenable to a Takings analysis. The Coal Act violated the Due Process Clause because it bore no legitimate relation to the government's asserted interests and the degree of retroactive effect was severe. Once that decision was announced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-2146.htm">96-2146 -- DYCUS V. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. -- 01/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
The potash mine was shut down purportedly only temporarily until January . PCA announced an extension of the shutdown
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043073p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who were participants in a defined contribution plan. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Jingdong Zhu and Adrian Fields (the Plaintiffs) are former employees of Schering Plough Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993668.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SS 1362 and 1369.1 We conclude that the District Court did not err in determining that WCI was liable under section 1369 and will affirm on that basis. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. The amount of WCI's liability to PBGC is being resolved in a separate administrative proceeding. 2 conclusions of law. Efforts to market and sell the BK businesses initially were unavailing. This transaction was never consummated. The history of the negotiations discloses that WCI was aware that legislation then pending in Congress could render it liable for the unfunded pension benefits if the plans terminated within five years after the closing of the deal. WCI was required to contribute $20 million to the BK pension trusts in five equal annual installments. BKC also was required to obtain a letter of credit in favor of WCI. On which WCI could draw in the event a claim or demand was brought against WCI with respect to the assumed BK plans. WCI would reduce the letter of credit for the benefit of BKC over a period of five and a half years if there were no demands asserted against WCI with respect to the BK plans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3058.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The administrative record and denial letter were satisfactory and Militello received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5MjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3922-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that Plaintiff Appellee Dennis Paese was entitled to benefits under a long term disability plan provided by his employer. Rather is an affirmative defense. Which was issued by Hartford and governed by ERISA. Could not perform the essential duties of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1532.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 000 in question was not eligible for inclusion in Mr. Wolberg's benefit calculation because it was a special retention bonus specifically excluded from the definition of qualifying compensation under the terms of the Plan. Wolberg's claim is not supported by substantial evidence. Was arbitrary and capricious. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. Was identified by AT&T as one of the experienced employees AT&T desired to retain to facilitate a successful merger transition. Which was reduced to a written agreement dated May 2. Colorado 80112 Dear Wayne: We are pleased to confirm an offer of a temporary assignment at AT&T Broadband. You will hold the position of Vice President Finance. The initial assignment is for up to three months and is intended to assist with the transition of the MediaOne Group Audit and Consulting Services function to AT&T Broadband. You will be assigned to complete other special projects at my direction. This assignment is to conclude on March 31 or April 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-5165a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Sherwin Kaplan. With him on the brief were Jeffrey B. We conclude that the claims against the PBGC must be dismissed because the pilots have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies. Finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953137P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harold Arbeitman was employed by two Dodge dealerships. His first wife from whom he was divorced. Who was named as beneficiary in the Royal Parkway plan. Harold Arbeitman died in August 1992. and profit sharing plans.2 Harold and Patricia were married in October 1966. children. Tried the case by consent of the parties. 2 1 The terms of the Royal Parkway and Royal Gate plans are the 2 same. in December 1983. against his estate. The validity of which was The agreement listed the separate property of Donna and Harold. Neither plan was listed level of support for Patricia and his children. The Trusts brought this interpleader action to have the court determine who was entitled to receive Harold's benefits under the pension plans. The benefits from the Royal Parkway plan were The approximately $83. The magistrate judge rejected Patricia's contention that the plan was intended to take the place of the life insurance policy required by the separation agreement. ERISA defines the term qualified preretirement survivor annuity as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991866.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/022178u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are current and former newspaper haulers for the defendant. Alleging that they were improperly classified as independent contractors when in fact they were common law employees. Holding that plaintiffs' claims were time barred under ERISA's three2 year statute of limitations. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' alleged breach of the Plan could not give rise to fiduciary liability because Gannett's classification of defendants as independent contractors was made in a business management. Which are known to the parties. The most compelling and determinative of these is the District Court's application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) § 413's three year statute of limitations. This argument in the District Court in support of class certification properly was ignored by the District Court in light of plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Rule 23 requirements. 3 2 did not expressly include or exclude independent contractors. The original contracts are ambiguous as to whether the haulers were to be treated as employees or independent contractors.3 In 1976.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/014516p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court entered judgment for defendant under Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence law after a jury found plaintiff 's contributory negligence was greater than defendant's negligence and also found for defendant on the ERISA issue on the theory that the trustee was not a fiduciary within the meaning of that law. Srein is the sole stockholder and only employee 3 of R.J. A viatical settlement contract is. Pays the investor the money he advanced under the agreement and the balance is divided between the investor and the settlement company in accordance with their agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-7060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Marka Peterson and Eli Gottesdiener. With him on the brief were Bruce A. Circuit Judge: The principal question in this case is whether plaintiffs appellants Marian Wagener and Donald Champoux stated a claim upon which relief can be granted in their complaint alleging that defendant appellee. We conclude that plaintiffs have indeed stated a claim under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1205.htm">96-1205 -- TRUSTEES OF THE COLORADO TILE MARBLE & TERRAZZO WORKERS PENSION FUND V. WILKINSON & CO. INC. -- 02/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs. Was required to use union labor on work it performed under subcontract at the Denver International Airport in Colorado. Wilkinson is a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement between the Tile Contractors Association of Northern New Jersey. II at 339. <p> The Local 77 CBA also contains what is designated as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/981677P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of which Kerr is the president and sole shareholder. Worked on Vatterott & Co. projects as well as Legacy Homes projects and thus were eligible to participate in Vatterott & Co.'s 401(k) pension plan. Vatterott & Co. is the plan administrator and Commerce Bank is the trustee of the Vatterott & Co. 401(k) plan. The plan entitles a plan participant who is terminated prior to retirement to receive the net credit balance in his individual plan account. Kerr was fully vested in the 401(k) plan at the time of his termination from Legacy Homes. 1991 (the valuation date based on Kerr's October request) was $16. The 4 district court also declined Kerr's request for attorney's fees and costs because Kerr was unsuccessful on his ERISA claims. Arguing that lost interest is an appropriate equitable remedy under section 1132(a)(3) and proof of receipt is not an element of his claim under section 1132(c). Kerr does not dispute that he has received the funds in his account to which he is entitled under the plan. Argues instead that his recovery was inadequate because he had to wait three and a half years for his money and had to file suit before Vatterott & Co. finally paid the account over.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001804.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All other individuals who are similarly situated in that they: 1) at some time were members of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America. 3) are receiving. Have received or are eligible to receive a pension. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellants contend that the district court erred in determining that the governing Pension Agreement is unambiguous and in resolving controverted allegations contained in their complaint in favor of Appellees. I Appellants are participants in an ERISA plan administered by the Pension Trust of Bethlehem (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1523.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richmond with whom John Foskett and Deutsch Williams Brooks DeRensis Holland & Drachman were on brief for appellee. Lehman was relocated and promoted to agency manager of the brokerage agency in Boston. The New England agency was relatively small. Ira Kleinman was appointed President of Pru Select. Benefitting Lehman whose wife is fifteen years younger than he. His New England office was going to be consolidated with the entire New York territory and part of the New Jersey territory. Lehman was to assume the duties and compensation scheme of a brokerage manager and report to the co managing directors in the newly created Northeast region: Robert Kiley. Lehman was instructed to formulate his own unit of brokers in New England from whom he could solicit business. He did not feel that this was possible. The latter was headed jointly by Kiley and the 42 year old Dietz. Their responsibilities were now more specialized. The overall results of the various regional consolidations were that four of the twelve pre consolidation directors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1204p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the district court correctly decided both issues and therefore we will affirm its judgments. Jordan were high level executives of the defendant. Which like all such plans is commonly referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-6058.man.html">HERMAN V. S. CAROLINA NAT'L BANK (5/15/1998, NO. 97-6058)<BR></A><BR>
South Carolina National Bank (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D390EBEB4E56813688256C71007CE22F/$file/0135509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Duong knew his situation was critical. A Lucent employee told Duong that the return of his passport would take one to two weeks.2 The complaint alleges that Lucent never informed Duong that the return could have been expedited in an emergency. The date Duong's doctor had given him for surgery was at hand. 3 alleging that SOS's recommendation that Duong remain in Saudi Arabia was negligent and that. We conclude that summary judgment was proper as to the breach of contract claim against AT&T. Bui is a citizen of Oregon. AT&T is a New York corporation. Lucent and SOS are Delaware corporations. ERISA also does not preempt the claim for negligent medical advice and for negligent delay to the extent that the delay was based on actions taken during the course of medical treatment or consultation. In which ERISA would have preempted nearly everything. AT&T 9 [2] Medical malpractice is one traditional field of state regulation that several circuits have concluded Congress did not intend to preempt. Which made it clear that the goal of such interpretations was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-6058.man.html">HERMAN V. S. CAROLINA NAT'L BANK (5/15/1998, NO. 97-6058)<BR></A><BR>
South Carolina National Bank (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1083p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) that removal is proper under the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0279p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Substantive Facts Defendant MTA is an association of approximately 700 member companies in the metalworking industry in Michigan. Plaintiff is a licensed insurance agent in the state of Michigan. While Plaintiff was initially hired as a salaried employee. Plaintiff was deemed an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57C827900B5E64C988256BDC007FFE6E/$file/9936106.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central question in this case is how to interpret an ERISA plan when the provisions of the plan master document are more favorable than. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Company created an ERISA retirement plan that allowed employees who were pilots. Excluded otherwise eligible employees who were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6483974E0C9B70D488256E5A00707D95/$file/0010325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mett (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C1E76A1E93EA1C9882572EC00007E02/$file/0417201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether severance pay should be included as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031326.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe that the court did have jurisdiction. The Plan provides that salaried and hourly employees cannot use vacation benefit days and will not be paid any vacation benefits upon termination of their employment until and unless they have completed. The purpose of the letter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFF8B8DC5853689588256E5A00707C27/$file/9956520.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: Before the Court are an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment in an ERISA2 action in which three employee benefit trust funds (collectively the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3861.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This diversity suit for breach of a contract of liability insurance was brought by an ERISA pension plan (the May plan. One of which however is an excess insurer whose liability to the plaintiffs need not be discussed separately. Which is called 2 No. 01 3861 an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1088p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individually and on behalf of all members of the Sperry Class previously certified by the Court whose claims have not been settled. Individually and on behalf of all members of the Sperry Class previously certified by the Court whose claims have not been settled James F. We are asked to decide in this particular appeal[fn1] whether the district court erred in holding. While at the same time reserving the employer's right to modify or terminate at
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/04acf3fe8e55896988256b27005f8f96/$FILE/0010325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mett (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04ACF3FE8E55896988256B27005F8F96/$file/0010325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mett (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/6483974e0c9b70d488256e5a00707d95/$FILE/0010325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mett (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFEC2DCBE4A930AF88256AA000569B99/$file/9956520.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: Before the Court are an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment in an ERISA2 action in which three employee benefit trust funds (collectively the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/93-3386.wpd.html">ZIMMERMAN V. SLOSS EQUIP., INC.<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied her request for a jury trial and held that she was not entitled to extra contractual damages. Zimmerman was hired as a full time secretary and receptionist by defendants Sloss Equipment. Zimmerman was hired. Sloss was president. McIntyre was vice president of Sloss Equipment and administrator of the group insurance plan. Nixon was the president of S & N Enterprises. Sloss was S & N Enterprises' vice president and chief executive officer. The policy was effective from June 1. Zimmerman contends she was told when she was hired that she would receive insurance benefits under defendants' health insurance plan after sixty days of employment. She claims she completed her application and assumed she was insured. The evidence is conflicting about whether and when Ms. Zimmerman was informed she had failed to complete the application. Whether she was subsequently sent the application to finish. She was admitted to Humana Hospital in Overland Park. She says he told her she was not fired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Roy & Cook was on brief. Allen & Snyder was on brief. These plans comprise what is familiarly known as the state retirement system. The key provisions of both plans are ordained by statute and both are administered under the aegis of the Board. 2 The law authorizing the MEP affords each of Rhode Island's thirty nine municipalities the option of deciding whether or not to participate. Its eligible employees are required to become members of the plan and must contribute six percent of salary until they have reached the maximum amount of service credit attainable. A qualified employee is entitled to a life annuity upon retirement in the amount of two percent of his or her final salary times the number of years of total creditable service (up to thirty seven and one half years). A person is eligible to retire with such a pension once he or she attains age fifty eight and has logged at least ten years of total creditable service. Under this formulation the only formulation that is germane to this case1 a municipal member's right to a pension vests when he or she meets both the age and years in service minima.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkwNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9061_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Leval was thereafter added to the panel by random selection. Who received payments of disability benefits after the date he alleges they were due to be paid. The following facts were not in dispute: Plaintiff Douglas Dobson was employed as an anesthesiologist at the West Central Anesthesiology Group. The Plan was administered by defendant Hartford. Is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0427p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She next brought a cause of action in state court that was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. That the Board's decision that Lillie Horton had no right to survivor benefits was not arbitrary or capricious as set forth in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Page 2 The facts in this pension dispute are uncontested. We are to determine whether the district court properly interpreted the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/024476pc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even if the proper termination of the Plan would have divested him of his vested rights. The Plan's termination was ineffective as to him. Lettrich was employed as a pharmacist by the Thrift Drug Division of J.C. These employee concerns emanated from the company's announced relocation of its home from New York to Texas and from the vigorous acquisition activity that was occurring at that time in the retail merchandise industry. The Plan addressed these concerns by providing a lump sum severance payment if an eligible employee was terminated within two years of a change of control.1 The amount of the severance payment was to be based on the employee's length of service. Lettrich was a profit sharing associate. Penney was detached and became a wholly owned subsidiary of J.C. Less than five years after the Plan was created. Which was distributed to all shareholders of record. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-5233.htm">97-5233 -- WHITEHEAD V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. -- 08/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUxNzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5173-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.1 Plaintiff Karen Coan was the controller of a company called KLC Inc. Such a plan is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUxNzMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5173-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.1 Plaintiff Karen Coan was the controller of a company called KLC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2984.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 2 No. 02 2984 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011909.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: A month before they were married. Two years after Odom and Newton were married. I Toni Odom and Charles Newton met in 1983 while both were working as linemen and line splicers for BellSouth Corporation. Each was a participant in BellSouth's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995051.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The calculation of his sentence.1 We will affirm his conviction and sentence in all aspects. An understanding of the facts of the case is a necessary foundation for a discussion of the issues he raises. We have jurisdiction over Helbling's appeal over his conviction under 28 U.S.C. We have considered both his counseled and pro se submissions. We have denied Helbling's motions to file further supplemental briefs and appendices. 2 embezzlement of employee pension plan funds from an ERISA covered plan (18 U.S.C. The mail fraud counts were dismissed during trial.2 The jury convicted Helbling of twenty seven of the remaining twenty nine counts. Helbling filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the indictment was not timely. Helbling argued to the District Court that the waiver was invalid because he had been coerced into signing it by fraud and misconduct. That the government witnesses were lying. The witnesses explained that Helbling was the president. The plan was funded exclusively by Micro Products.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3757_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Pioneer Ranch was responsible for the trucking company's liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that UNUM's long term disability plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991861.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Raleigh C & T is a corporation located in Raleigh. The plans were amended and restated in 1986. RCV Tech was a corporation formed by Drs. These two doctors were the sole shareholders and officers of RCV Tech. The two corporations were separate corporate entities. Davis and Chaudhry began employment discussions with Lopriore in October 1987 because they were interested in his perfusion services.2 Lopriore was hired to work for RCV Tech at a salary of $36. Inc. is not a party to this appeal. No contributions were made to the Raleigh C & T plans on Lopriore's behalf until 1991. Contributions were then made by Raleigh C & T on Lopriore's behalf for the years 1991. The following terms from the 1986 Master Plan were in force at Raleigh C & T: Section 18.1 Multiple Employers. (a) General. If the employers sponsoring the Plan are all corporations that are members of the same
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052191p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Becker approved this opinion but died before it was released. 2 John M. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Plan was an unfunded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arnold LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellee.</P> <P> </P> <P><CENTER> </CENTER> </P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953128P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 were not liable to the Funds under §§ 502(g)(2) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 1995) (Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law). district court erred in (1) holding that New Bohnert was not the alter ego of Superior General. I. Background The Funds are employee trust funds established between 1962 and 1974 pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Builders Association of Missouri and various The Honorable Dean Whipple. New Bohnert and Superior General are collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988895.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom the plaintiffs have recording contracts. Six of the counts of the second amended complaint are implicated in these appeals. 1 against the Record Company Defendants. Which is from a final judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are recording artists. All of them are singers.2 Through agents. The plaintiffs are compensated with royalties. This agreement is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-8895.man.html">MOORE V. AM. FED'N OF TELEVISION (6/29/2000, NO. 98-8895)<BR></A><BR>
With whom the plaintiffs have recording contracts. Which is from a final judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0272p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Though Local 100 may have considered the cost of pension and health insurance premiums in deciding whether to lay off employees. Local 100's evidence sufficiently indicates that any desire to avoid the payment of benefits was not central to their decision to terminate Schweitzer. Schweitzer was hired by the union as a part time assistant organizer and was assigned to work under Homer Mann (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-8895.man.html">MOORE V. AM. FED'N OF TELEVISION (6/29/2000, NO. 98-8895)<BR></A><BR>
With whom the plaintiffs have recording contracts. Which is from a final judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 6. Were on brief. Finding that summary judgment was appropriate. The VSP was a new plan of limited duration introduced by Chase in August of 1990 to reduce its work force. Who were accepted into the program a package of benefits: severance pay. Rodriguez was employed by Chase from 1957 until he 4 resigned effective September 21. The parties stipulated that Rodriguez was absent from work from March 19 until the effective date of his resignation due to a heart ailment.1 While he was absent. Rodriguez was paid first through his accumulated vacation and sick leave and then by Chase through a special paid sick leave. 1 The district court stated in its Opinion and Order granting summary judgment for Chase that Rodriguez was absent from March 6 until he resigned effective September 21. Chase argues that Rodriguez was not continuously disabled for the requisite six months prior to his resignation to qualify him for LTDP benefits. On appeal he explains that he did not apply for LTDP benefits because the Chase representatives told him that he would have to withdraw his application for the VSP before he could apply for LTDP benefits. 5 Employee Benefits Officer of Chase.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/022679u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Benefits to which he 2 was entitled under the Fund's pension plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0235p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Haus is entitled to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyNzgtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1278-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dependents are persons that a defendant is legally responsible for supporting. affirm. Should have been less severe given the uncertainties of his financial situation. BACKGROUND Jaffe was a Vice President of Salomon Smith Barney and a longstanding Bank of New York (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054974p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from an award of attorneys' fees for an action brought by a union pension and welfare fund against an employer pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Arguing that the District Court should have dismissed the fund's application for fees as untimely and. That the amount of the award was unreasonable. We conclude that the motion for fees was timely and that the fee award was reasonable. We will affirm the District Court. Whether a trial court must award interest under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(B) on an employer's delinquent contributions that were unpaid at the time a suit was filed but paid by the time of judgment. I. Plaintiff United Automobile Workers Local 259 Social Security Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-3362.htm">01-3362 -- CIRULIS V. UNUM CORPORATION SEVERANCE PLAN -- 03/05/2003<BR></A><BR>
Employees were required to sign a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/97-6226.htm">97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3121_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is incorrect. All that the retired pilots are seeking in the first instance is a hearing before the bankruptcy judge. There is no argument that the confirmed plan resolves the claims made by the retired pilots in this appeal. The distinctions relevant to this case are that the latter are not insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation or protected by the provisions of ERISA relating to the termination of pension plans. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1321(a). The purpose of the motion is a little obscure. What they really wanted was for the judge to order United and ALPA to negotiate with URPBPA as well. The judge's refusal is one of the orders that the association is asking us to reverse. While the section 1113 proceeding was going on. The modification was intended to eliminate the pension plans created by the agreement but compensate the active pilots. That is. If that agreement was 4 No. 05 3121 approved. Which requires that the bankruptcy judge's approval be obtained for contracts made by the debtor during the bankruptcy that are outside the ordinary course of business.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/003420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her treating physicians recommended that she have her remaining lung transplanted with a healthy one. Consideration of the Lawrence factors leads the Court to believe that plaintiffs are not entitled to shift their attorneys' fee onto the shoulders of the defendant in this matter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4258_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jenkins was an employee of Mid America. Mid America was the plan administrator and Mr. Yager was the plan trustee. The plan was prepared by RSM McGladrey. Was reviewed by Mid America's attorneys. That amount then is divided among the participants. Defendants assert that Erskine was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0433p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is the issue this case requires the court to resolve. The claimants to the stock are a class of employees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063031p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certain fiduciaries who obtain legal advice in the execution of their fiduciary obligations are precluded from asserting the attorney client privilege against their beneficiaries. We have not yet had the opportunity to decide whether the rule should apply within our circuit. Even if we were to adopt the fiduciary exception. We will vacate the order of the District Court requiring the production of otherwise privileged attorney client communications. HN NJ is a 5 subsidiary of Health Net of the Northeast. (HNI) is the corporate parent not only of HN NJ and HN NE but also of other subsidiary insurance companies that provide medical benefits to participants in benefit plans established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Although certain policy formulation and administrative services are shared among the Health Net companies. A subsidiary is responsible for deciding claims in accordance with these policies and for paying claims to participants from the subsidiary's assets. The subsidiary will process the claim and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A37694FD239A423088256E5A00707AF5/$file/9955805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 are seeking to collect money owed for work performed on a public construction project using California's stop notice and payment bond remedies. Because neither remedy is preempted by ERISA. Which is composed of Standard Industrial Electric Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BAF300A5292AB2B88256B2F0001ADD2/$file/9917094.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She argues that the district court was incorrect in concluding that ERISA barred her suit against Allmerica. I. Appellant was married to Charles Everhart. For which it was the plan administrator. The terms of the policy dictated that his beneficiaries were to receive a death benefit of twice his annual earnings. Charles Everhart was a plan participant. Was roughly $239. That figure was $480. It continued to maintain it was required to pay benefits only on Charles Everhart's stated salary of $84. Interpretation of ERISA is a question of law reviewed de novo. An employee welfare benefit plan is a plan an employer establishes or maintains to provide benefits for its participants. A money judgment for an action brought under § 1132(a)(1)(B) may be enforced
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD672BA6C63F946D88256E5A00707DA8/$file/9917094.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She argues that the district court was incorrect in concluding that ERISA barred her suit against Allmerica. I. Appellant was married to Charles Everhart. For which it was the plan administrator. The terms of the policy dictated that his beneficiaries were to receive a death benefit of twice his annual earnings. Charles Everhart was a plan participant. Was roughly $239. That figure was $480. It continued to maintain it was required to pay benefits only on Charles Everhart's stated salary of $84. Interpretation of ERISA is a question of law reviewed de novo. An employee welfare benefit plan is a plan an employer establishes or maintains to provide benefits for its participants. A money judgment for an action brought under § 1132(a)(1)(B) may be enforced
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08BB8D50F8C61DDC88256A32005AD97D/$file/9955805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 are seeking to collect money owed for work performed on a public construction project using California's stop notice and payment bond remedies. Because neither remedy is preempted by ERISA. Which is composed of Standard Industrial Electric Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001907.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 10
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/005049.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals an order granting summary judgment to Prudential Insurance Company on her claim that Stanley Harrow and a putative class of plaintiffs were wrongfully denied insurance coverage for Viagra. We will affirm. 2 I. Stanley Harrow was insured under the Prudential HealthCare HMO Plan through his wife. Harrow was prescribed Viagra. She was informed by an unidentified person that the plan did not cover Viagra because it was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022173.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Harris immediately fell to the ground and was later hospitalized. An MRI was performed on Harris's lumbar spine. During which he was treated for disc disease at the L 5/S 1 level. Following a bone The symbol L 5 represents one of five lumbar vertebrae which are located between the thorax and the pelvis. The S 1 is located just below the L 5. 2 Stenosis identifies the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65D10B41F8789D0E88256E5A00707CB7/$file/9916391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1682p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are faced with an apparent conflict between
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0105p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0105p.06 have failed to advance. We conclude that the IBT's motion to intervene was properly denied. WILL. Sitting by designation. * required on the part of the IBT to recognize that it believed the IBT's interests were implicated. Could have intervened in the suit before the final judgment was issued. 396 (6th Cir. 1993) (denying motion to intervene where the intervenors filed their motion after final judgment was entered. Which they were entitled to do. They are not. While this burden is minimal because the movant need not prove that the representation will in fact be inadequate. This Court has held that a movant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating inadequate representation when 1) no collusion is shown between the existing party and the opposition. 2) the existing party does not have any interests adverse to the intervener. It is clear that Plaintiffs are not in collusion with the MCTWF. Plaintiffs have no interests adverse to the IBT. Plaintiffs have actively and thoroughly litigated the attorney's fees issue at every stage of this suit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1786.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spillane was on brief for appellants. Angelini and Bowditch & Dewey were on brief for appellee. We find that the state law claims are preempted. The district court found that all of the Carlos' state law claims were preempted by 514(a) of the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/003420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A2491269CDA0A17A88256AC4000421E5/$file/9916391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B4F62E20EFD924088257100008395CE/$file/0455594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS The Pension Trust is the product of collective bargaining between the Southern California District Council of Laborers together with affiliated local unions and the Southern California Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America together with other associations of contractors. The Pension Trust was established on October 16. Its terms are set out in over 90 typed pages. Half of the trustees are elected by the union and half by the associations of employers. There is a procedure for appealing the denial of pension claims and there is a Pension Appeals Committee. Whose elected chairman is John L. Employers are required to contribute to the Pension Trust for all hours worked by a construction laborer and for all hours for which the laborer is paid although no work is performed. The employer is required to contribute to the Pension Trust for each hour of such vacation. The collective bargaining agreements between the union and the employer association have not required paid vacations. A part of the wages due to the employees with respect to whose work such payments are made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1875.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Philips notified Sembos that it was selling a substantial portion of the Philips Components division to Beyerschlag Centralab Components (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2604.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That network is composed of independent common carrier truckers. All of these drivers were independent contractors. Some of whom were represented by various local unions (also referred to as Fund drivers). Eight of the employee drivers were represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 460. Three of the employee drivers were represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 695. The Nestle transportation network was split into local lanes and over the road lanes. These local lanes were in practice operated exclusively by the Fund drivers. The over the road lanes were routes over which trucks would transport Nestle products between two or more geographic locations. The Fund drivers at those locations were let go. Even though Nestle's need for truckers who were located near those terminals did not end entirely. Therefore was near the same location as the terminated Fund drivers. Joseph and Oconomowoc were performed exclusively by independent common carriers. Were distributed amongst all remaining classes of drivers. The only difference is that after the terminal closure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1628.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P rez Vargas and Santiago Puig Law Office were on brief for appellants. Graffam & Lausell was on brief for appellee. Chief Judge. case is whether appellants' claims under Mandatory Decree No. 38 of the Minimum Wage Board of Puerto Rico are preempted by 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Alleging that they were not allowed to enjoy vacation leave duly owed them pursuant to Mandatory Decree No. 38. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on Crowley's theory that Appellants' claims under Mandatory Decree No. 38 were preempted by ERISA. The district court held that the Appellants' claims were indeed preempted by ERISA. Most of Crowley's employees are members of the Seafarers' International Union. Appellants were members of the Union. The Union was their exclusive bargaining representative. The Plan is a multiemployer employee benefit plan which provides vacation benefits to the employees of its members. The Plan is structured and governed in accordance with ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/051695P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
* An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Plan was a defined benefit pension plan governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1003. Its CEO was responsible for managing the Plan. The Plan was amended to allow participants to receive a lump sum distribution upon retirement. The Plan initially stated that the mortality assumptions used in calculating lump sums
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are all former officers of Defendant Appellant. The other defendants in this action are the International Executive Board of the UPGWA (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-8934.opa.html">HERMAN V. NATIONSBANK TRUST CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Herman v. N.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-8934.opa.html">HERMAN V. NATIONSBANK TRUST CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Herman v. N.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD2325FBED58F7A488256E7000781F25/$file/0210651.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shipsey was originally indicted on December 31. Counts 21 and 22 were dismissed by the district court at the end of the government's case inchief. The district court declared a mistrial on the deadlocked counts and Shipsey was sentenced to 37 months' imprisonment. For failure to state an offense.1 It denied the motion as to the remain1 Counts 17 19 were dismissed because. Rejecting Shipsey's argument that the superseding counts were barred by the statute of limitations. He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment on each count. Shipsey is a land developer and building contractor. He was one of three general partners in Michael Shipsey and Associates (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7190CBD2515404EF88256E91007C814A/$file/0210651.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: (1) On slip opinion page 4660. Lines 21 23 are amended to read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/954205P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
J. Steven Whitworth was Jefferson's supervisor for most of Jefferson's employment. Jefferson was terminated as part of that reduction in force. When he was discharged. The section 1981 claim was tried to a jury. The ERISA claim was tried to the court. The court found that Jefferson was vested in the Part A Plan and awarded him $853.69 as This plan was discontinued while Jefferson was employed at Vickers. Section 401(k) plans (also known as cash or deferred arrangements or CODAs) allow participants to have a portion of their pre tax earnings contributed to retirement savings. Vickers' plan provided that the employer match employees' contributions. 23 2 his interest in that plan.4 The court further found that Jefferson was not vested in the 401(k) Plan. ERISA claims are properly tried to the court. The district court determined that evidence of unrelated ERISA claims in the section 1981 trial would have created a trial within a trial. We cannot say the district court abused its discretion in excluding the release from the section 1981 trial. 4 That award has not been appealed. 3 While it may be relevant to a claim of discrimination that a minority employee was required to execute a release while others were not.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/014156.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are Richard B. Currently having participants that were employed by Roush Insurance Group. The defendants are The New England Mutual Life Insurance Company and its successor. Were addressed by the District Court. The two prong standard prescribed for the analysis of the ERISA statute of limitations bar was not employed in accordance with these precedents. Was filed. We hold that the District Court erred in barring Roush's claim against New England for breach of fiduciary duties (the delay in investment of his funds and the delay in accurate accountings) and we will remand to the District Court for further proceedings now that we have held that the statute of limitations is no bar to Roush's action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review of a district court's decision on summary judgment is plenary. We are required to apply the same test the District Court should have utilized initially. We have detailed only those facts that bear on our current disposition. Which was designed by New England and constituted an amendment and restatement of Roush's existing Profit Sharing Plan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002767.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 98 Pension Fund (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1004EC107EC8531788256C44007C163E/$file/0017055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an action alleging breach of a fiduciary responsibility insurance policy arising out of an insurance company's refusal to defend its insured against a third party claim. At issue is whether the Winncrest action involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty that triggers Federal's obligation to defend under California law. Procedural History PTF is an employee benefit trust that has a fiduciary responsibility insurance policy with Federal. (2) whether Federal was prejudiced by any late tender of the claim. Summary judgment was ultimately granted to Federal because the court found that the Winncrest action did not proximately result from a breach of fiduciary duty. It is necessary to understand the complex factual scenario alleged by Winncrest. Federal does not have standing to maintain its cross appeal. The district court found that Federal did not have a duty to defend PTF in the Winncrest action. Federal was not the aggrieved party in this judgment. A party who receives all that he has sought generally is not aggrieved by the judgment affording the relief and cannot appeal from it.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01592A152A3B6CCC88256AA1005BCC52/$file/9855611.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Audio is a party to collective bargaining agreements with the International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees and Motion Picture Operators (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6130.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that All Steel was Interstate's alter ego and thus liable for the unpaid judgment. Courts have recognized a number of analytical distinctions that clarify and delimit Peacock's reach. If an alter ego claim is asserted in conjunction with the underlying federal cause of action. It is only when an alter ego claim is asserted in a separate judgment enforcement proceeding that Peacock requires an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Peacock also is not implicated in actions to reach and collect assets of the judgment debtor held by a third party. It is only when the plaintiff seeks to hold the third party personally liable on the judgment that an independent jurisdictional basis is required. Is both generally ill conceived and specifically inconsistent with this court's position in Sandlin. So that it is held liable for its own
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-6226.htm">97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs have filed two cross appeals challenging various aspects of the district court's judgment. Knox Van Hoy are former employees of Woods Petroleum Corporation (Woods). As part of the merger (which was described in the record as more akin to a hostile takeover). 1985.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0166p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are the United Steelworkers of America union and several retirees formerly employed by defendant. Plaintiffs' complaint was based on their claim that their benefits were vested and could not unilaterally be altered by Joy. Summary judgment was granted to Joy against those plaintiffs retiring after August 19. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees was denied. The district court is affirmed. Plaintiffs are former Joy employees who were represented by the United Steelworkers of America union (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA47EA596ACEF87C88256E5A00707C2A/$file/9855611.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Audio is a party to collective bargaining agreements with the International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees and Motion Picture Operators (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0448p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This complicated case involves a merger agreement in which Fifth Third guaranteed that the participants in Suburban Bancorporation's pre merger employee benefit plan would receive funds from Fifth Third's general assets if certain conditions were met. Hutchison and other members of the proposed class were participants in the ESOP. Because Suburban and Fifth Third were concerned about the tax implications associated with distributing ESOP funds prematurely. The meaning of which is in dispute. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/95-9223.opa.html">KEMP V. INT'L BUS. MACHINES CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kemp v. Are nonetheless preempted by ERISA because of REAP's inclusion in a multibenefit plan containing ERISA benefits.<p> For the reasons that follow. Stating that ITO II is subject to ERISA.<p> One of the benefits mentioned in the ITO II SPD is REAP. At the time ITO II was implemented. The SPD states that employees who elected to participate in ITO II would continue to have access to REAP. IBM revoked or suspended the REAP benefit.<p> The plaintiffs are two former IBM employees who elected to participate in ITO II while it included REAP. If they were provided individually. IBM argued in its motion that ITO II is. IBM argued that the plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/95-9223.opa.html">KEMP V. INT'L BUS. MACHINES CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kemp v. Are nonetheless preempted by ERISA because of REAP's inclusion in a multibenefit plan containing ERISA benefits.<p> For the reasons that follow. Stating that ITO II is subject to ERISA.<p> One of the benefits mentioned in the ITO II SPD is REAP. At the time ITO II was implemented. The SPD states that employees who elected to participate in ITO II would continue to have access to REAP. IBM revoked or suspended the REAP benefit.<p> The plaintiffs are two former IBM employees who elected to participate in ITO II while it included REAP. If they were provided individually. IBM argued in its motion that ITO II is. IBM argued that the plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7252a.html">ANDES BRUCE S. V. FORD MTR CO<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/013624p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The material facts are undisputed. He was compensated on an hourly basis. Bauer was compensated by Summit on a salaried basis. Neither party disputes that in each of the years that Bauer was employed. Summit's benefit administrators advised him that he was eligible to receive retirement benefits based upon only his 3.667 years of service as a salaried employee. Although his eighteen plus years as an hourly employee were not counted in computing retirement benefits for the years he was ineligible to participate in the Plan as an hourly employee. They were counted in satisfying the Plan's five year vesting period for the years he was eligible to participate in the Plan as a salaried employee. B. The Plan The Plan was first implemented in 1980. It was amended and restated in 1994 and again in 1997.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314123.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Appellants are a group of individuals formerly employed by Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043773p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case arises out of a dispute over whether employees divested in connection with the merger between Mobil Corporation and Exxon Corporation are entitled to severance benefits. Are former Mobil Corporation employees whose employment with the merged Exxon Mobil Corporation was terminated when the division for which they worked was divested to Tosco Corporation. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to benefits under the terms of a summary plan description (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1611.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. He was a participant in the Monsanto Company Salaried Employees Pension Plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B87F9D1022854F068825710800815B16/$file/0316518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a cautionary tale for ERISA administrators. We are met with three claimants to an ERISA governed life insurance policy held by the decedent. The two most basic components of any ERISA plan are the plan administrator and the plan documents. The plan administrator is a fiduciary charged with the duty to administer the benefit plan
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-5122.htm">96-5122 -- MEMBER SERVICES LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK (OKLAHOMA) - - 12/15/1997<BR></A><BR>
The guardian of minor children who were beneficiaries of the plan. Ruling that it was entitled to recovery under an amendment to the plan providing for subrogation. ANB appeals and we reverse. <p> <center>I</center> <p> The underlying facts are undisputed. The father of the minor children for whom ANB is the guardian. Is an employee of Liberty Glass and his minor children are beneficiaries under the plan. At the time these benefits were paid. The plan was amended to add a provision giving MSA a right of recoupment if a beneficiary received money from a negligent third party as a result of injuries for which the plan had paid benefits. The amendment provided that it was retroactively effective as of March 1. Alleging that BIC was liable under the doctrine of product liability for the injuries to the children. ANB was represented in its suit against BIC by E. Bradford Williams (the attorneys) pursuant to a court approved attorney fee contract under which the attorneys were to receive a fee of fifty percent of all amounts collected after the deduction of case expenses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033112np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the breach of the Agreement by Koenig was not material and did not justify the forfeiture of all benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the judgment entered by the District Court and remand for further proceedings. Koenig was promoted to Corporate Vice President and became one of ADP's top thirty officers in a work force of approximately 37. ADP shall have. In a capacity which is the same or similar to any capacity in which [he] was involved during the last two years of . . . employment by ADP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/011896P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs asserted that the more generous benefits offered as part of the 1993 early retirement program are vested and unalterable. Concluding that plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under either theory. NCR offered the 1993 Enhanced Retirement Program (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1745550937F817BB88256ABF007BE07E/$file/9917040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal from the district court's final judgment. Was an employee owned garbage company. 12634 Plaintiffs are former employee shareholders (or their heirs and assigns) of Norcal. There is no dispute that the ESOP is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. Forty four of the Plaintiffs also were Norcal employees and participants in the benefit plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CE960676BCF075588256E5A00707CAE/$file/9917040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal from the district court's final judgment. Was an employee owned garbage company. 12634 Plaintiffs are former employee shareholders (or their heirs and assigns) of Norcal. There is no dispute that the ESOP is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. Forty four of the Plaintiffs also were Norcal employees and participants in the benefit plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58177393AC7704FA88256D48007260B8/$file/0116922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is from that decision. We agree with the District Court that the detailed records of expenditures sought by the appellants were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTAxNzNfc28ucGRm/05-0173_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052539p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The focus of Miller's appeal is the accrual date of his cause of action to recover benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0324p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are or were members of the Defendant Transportation Workers Union of America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0030p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stanley are inmates at Michigan correctional facilities. The attorney general may file a complaint in the circuit court for the county from which a prisoner was sentenced. Stating that the person is or has been a prisoner in a state correctional facility. That there is good cause to believe that the prisoner has assets. If the prisoner is confined in a state correctional facility. By registered mail addressed to the prisoner in care of the chief administrator of the state correctional facility where the prisoner is housed. Abbott is released from the physical custody of the Department of Corrections. Arguing that the SCFRA order was an assignment of his pension payments in violation of provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/013956.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm that decision. We find that plaintiffs are required to exhaust Plan remedies because their fiduciary allegations. Which are based on CBS's failure to comply with a vesting and partial termination provision in its Plan. We also find that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that Plan remedies are futile. I. Facts Plaintiffs are a class of former employees of CBS (formerly known as Westinghouse) and participants in the Westinghouse Pension Plan. Section 18.B. of the Westinghouse Pension Plan contains the following provision for termination or partial termination of the Plan: If the Plan is terminated. S 411 (d)(3) provides that: a trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under section 401(a) unless the plan of which such trust is a part provides that (A) upon its termination or partial termination . . . the rights of all affected employees to benefits accrued to the date of such termination. Are nonforfeitable. 3 part of this downsizing effort. The District Court determined that it was more appropriate to address CBS's motion under Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991155.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. An amended complaint was filed on June 18. I. The facts as stated below are essentially adopted from the district court's opinion. As the material facts of this case are not in dispute. The Appellants are fifty six former management employees who were previously employed at Lucent's Richmond plant (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1725.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kolodney were on brief for appellees Central Beverage Corporation Union Employees' Supplemental Retirement Plan and George Matta. Appellant Fabio Morais claims that his disability pension was incorrectly calculated by his employer's retirement plan. Resolved the dispute at that time by signing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1691.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arnold LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Lockhart LLP</SPAN> were on brief. The principal issue is whether the employer must be indemnified for certain belated contributions it made to the profit sharing accounts of various subsidiary employees. Upon determining that these payments (and certain other amounts) were covered by the relevant policy. Eaton Vance Management (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061277P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are former employees of CPC whose employment ended prior to the merger.2 CPC administered two ERISA plans in which the plaintiffs participated a Money Purchase Pension Plan (MPPP) and a Profit Sharing Plan (PSP). The PSP was discretionarily funded by CPC. While the MPPP was a defined benefit plan that provided for contributions by CPC based on a percentage of a participant employee's compensation. CPC maintained balance sheets that tracked the amounts that it would have contributed to the MPPP from 1998 to 2001 if not for the zero funding amendment. CPC contributed to the PSP an amount equal to what it would have contributed to the MPPP if not for the zero funding amendment. SVC offered retention incentive bonuses to CPC employees who transferred to SVC in amounts equal to the amounts that would have been contributed to the MPPP if not for the zero funding amendment. They were ineligible for the retention incentive bonuses. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a claim alleging that the zero funding amendment was a breach of fiduciary duty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/952064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court1 determined that Doe was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/991506P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McKenzie Engineering Company is a marine construction firm based in Fort Madison. McKenzie is party to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961968.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the papers in question did not have to be signed by an attorney. The TIAA CREF annuity was listed in four separate places on forms filed with the petition. It was listed on Schedule B as personal property. It was shown on Schedule C as property claimed as exempt. With the notation that the exemption was provided under ERISA. The monthly income from the annuity was listed on Schedule I as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ltd. was on brief. With whom Roy & Cook was on brief. We are summoned again to survey SELYA. (SJU).1 In our first visit to the war zone we determined that Cottrill was not a fiduciary within the contemplation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). They are adequately stated in our earlier opinion. After pausing to elucidate 1The defendants in this case are SJU. Both prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees are available. We will disturb such rulings only if the record persuades us that the trial court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/023622P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An employer that withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan will be liable to the plan for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042307np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Magistrate Judge held the Fund's calculation of benefits was proper and granted summary judgment in its favor.1 We will affirm. An abbreviated recitation of the facts will suffice. Grove are retired participants in the Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund. Are beneficiaries entitled to survivor benefits under the plan. Otto is credited with twenty six years of service at fourteen different employer contribution rates. Grove is credited with over nineteen years of service at ten different contribution rates. Is a pension trust administered by a tenmember board of trustees. The board is comprised of five members appointed by contributing employers and five members appointed by local teamster unions. The The parties consented to proceedings before a M agistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 2 1 trustees are fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) and are required to discharge their duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the Fund. Operation of the Fund is governed by a trust agreement and by the terms and conditions of the corresponding pension plan both of which are summarized for participants in a summary plan description.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011970P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment was erroneous because 3M provided vested benefits. Hughes were employed by 3M until they both retired at age 66 Ed retiring in 1991 and Dorothy in 1993. Were members of Local 6 75 of Oil. The resulting agreement was distributed to the active employees. A document called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415477.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They claim that because the summary plan descriptions (SPDs) issued by Blue Cross in connection with their respective plans stated that there was no calendar year deductible. We will vacate the district court's class certification order and remand the case for further proceedings. The Funding Plus Plan is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055033np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Who are familiar with the facts. We will not recite them except as necessary to the discussion. Prudential explained that a lump sum distribution was available under the Plan only if the total accrued benefit is less than $5000 or if an additional retirement benefit was granted as a result of an involuntary separation from service. Believing that the letter was a formal adverse benefit determination. Referring to the specific Plan provisions on which the denial was based. He claimed that he was entitled to a lump sum distribution of his accrued pension benefit. That the Plan was discriminatory. That there was no discrimination because an ERISA plan may treat its participants differently. That the defendants did not have a duty to advise Bennett of changes to the Plan that were inapplicable to him. Our review of the order granting the motion to dismiss is plenary. We will affirm the District Court's order only if it appears that Bennett could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043510np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is entitled to attorney's fees under ERISA. We have set forth the following five factors to guide the exercise of such discretion: (1) the (2) the (3) the (4) the (5) the offending parties' culpability or bad faith. Our determination is particularly informed by the first and fifth Ursic factors. ERISA prevents pension plans from denying credit for pre ERISA service time accrued prior to a break in service
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/023934P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This dispute involves whether his designated beneficiary is entitled to an accidental death benefit. The beneficiary is Schanus's daughter. This action was brought by her mother. Schanus was killed after the motorcycle he was operating veered off a road and struck a fence. Schanus was ejected from the motorcycle and suffered fatal head injuries. Blood tests taken after the accident showed that Schanus was legally intoxicated at the time of the crash (with a blood alcohol level of 0.19). Which would have doubled the life insurance benefit paid to Amber Lynn. On the ground that Schanus's death was not the result of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1938.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnston & Aronson was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found on the basis of a comprehensive stipulation of the undisputed facts and after hearing oral argument1 that Malden was not liable to make any additional contributions to the Fund nor to reimburse the Fund for payments previously made in connection with the distribution of vacation benefits to Malden Employees. Are the trustees of a multiemployer employee benefits plan known as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Eastern States Health and Welfare Fund. Benefits distributed by the Fund are funded by employer contributions and by investment income earned on employer contributions. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1488.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Del Valle Cruz with whom Jose Luis Gonzalez Castaner was on brief for appellant Domingo Diaz. Were on brief for appellee. He says that the Plan should have provided him a pension of about $450 per month. The following key facts are not contested: 1. From 1943 to 1960 Diaz worked on ships whose employees were represented by the Seafarers International Union (SIU). He began working on ships whose employees were 2 2 represented by the National Maritime Union (NMU). 3. Was injured and stopped working as a seaman altogether. 5. The upshot is that Diaz received a pension of about $200 per month (and without certain health benefits) instead of the $450 per month (plus such benefits) to which he believed himself entitled. Diaz argues that the trustees have failed to do so by misinterpreting the break in service rule in applying it to his situation. A court will give trustees considerable leeway to interpret and to apply pension plan rules. Setting aside those trustee decisions only if they are arbitrary. That the Supreme Court has said that this deferential standard of review is appropriate only where the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022763p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part. TPC is a closely held corporation. It provided that Fields was to have the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0078p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 BACKGROUND Simon was employed by Warner Lambert Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-3134.wpd.html">CHAMBERS V. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN CORP.<BR></A><BR>
The parties agreed to have a federal magistrate judge hear the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Is a beneficiary of a prepaid healthcare plan provided by FHP (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0342n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contend that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts those claims and the district court should have dismissed them with prejudice. Are trustees of the Leonard Insurance Services Agency. Defendant Paul Stolic was involved in providing those services in his capacity as an employee and director at Hausser. Formerly Hausser produced a series of valuation letters for Leonard containing estimates of the value of Leonard stock. 2 Stolic acknowledged during his deposition that Hausser maintained documents indicating that the values set forth in the materials prepared by the firm for Leonard were being used for the ESOP. Stolic claimed that he first became aware that Leonard was using Hausser's valuations for the purposes of the ESOP after the first year Hausser took on the valuation assignment. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued a letter to the ESOP plan administrators notifying them that it was initiating an investigation to determine compliance with the provisions of ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-7091a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Roush were on the brief for appellee. That the company was considering implementation of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3408_016A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reg Ellen Machine Tool Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3408_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reg Ellen Machine Tool Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4774801DB3C0004F88256E62007F2D2C/$file/0215936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: At issue here is an alleged violation of section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Chevron Corporation (Chevron) appeals from the injunction requiring it to modify its retirement plan records to reflect that six plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated by Chevron Product Company's Richmond. Eight plaintiffs who were denied relief four pursuant to pre trial summary judgment and four following trial cross appealed. The district court's jurisdiction was based on 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e). We have jurisdiction over Chevron's timely appeal and the timely cross appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Chevron's use of SITE at Richmond is the source of controversy here. Richmond is part of the Refining Division of the Chevron Products Company. Which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron. Plaintiffs were all
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/021699p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Oatway was a full time employee of AIG from 1983 to 1992. The first was the January 18. The second was the October 11. Giving him the option to purchase 200 shares at $58.625 per share under the 1987 Plan.3 The agreements were identical in nature. Blank spaces in the agreements were filled in by the parties to reflect the particular date of execution. The stated purpose of the 1987 Plan was: [T]o advance the interest of [AIG] by providing certain of the key employees of AIG and of any parent or subsidiary corporation of AIG. The executive can then purchase the stock at what is. The district court granted AIG's motion to dismiss Oatway's amended complaint on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as none of the three AIG incentive stock option agreements were ERISA plans. Our review is plenary and we apply the same test as the district court. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031825.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The particular issue that threatened US Airways' ability to access the loans was an escalating pension plan funding problem. Which is at the center of this appeal. Was an underfunded plan guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/01-2324.htm">01-2324 -- GILBERTSON V. ALLIED SIGNAL INC. -- 05/06/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36C1CFDD0AEC72828825717600555425/$file/0335864.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A requirement known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D18F0D8FD1DB766D882572DF00002210/$file/0515077.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Liberty Life does not challenge the district court's ruling that Blankenship was entitled to long term disability benefits. Liberty Life argues that the disability benefits owed Blankenship should have been reduced by the amount of retirement benefits transferred to his Individual Retirement Account (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1824.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Robin Alexander was on brief. Dailey was on brief. Dana & Gould were on brief. As is often true at the preliminary injunction stage. The record is somewhat scanty. We credit the undisputed facts presented below and adopt the district court's findings as to controverted matters to the extent they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. PSC is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in New Bedford. Or were PSC retirees and Morse Tool retirees or to consider separately widows of former employees. 3 beneficiaries of. The chief defendant is International Twist Drill (Holdings). Morse Tool was mired in bankruptcy. ITD was the sole voting shareholder. During the period when purchase was under consideration. Became involved in negotiations regarding the company's collective bargaining agreement but ITD was not itself a signatory to that pact. PSC was unable to survive. Then ITD was to make the payments. 5 In granting the injunction. The district court found
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022045P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the retirement plan was determining whether the DRO qualified as a QDRO. Ronald claimed in the bankruptcy proceeding that his pending distribution from the retirement plan should be excluded from his bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2)1 because it was subject to ERISA's anti alienation provision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul01/03-40961-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The PBGC is a wholly owned government corporation responsible for the administration and enforcement of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212779.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
W hen un paid contributions to a plan are identified as immediate assets of a plan. That such contributions are assets of the plan. Shared intent of th e parties is a necessar y prereq uisite to im posing fiduciary respon sibility on officers who otherwise would be unsure of their increased responsibilities under ERIS A. Th ough w e conclu de that the languag e of the ag reemen t is not suf ficiently clear to impose fiduciary duty. I. BACKGROUND Roger Hall and Hope Hall are th e genera l manag er and p resident. H & R Services is obligated to contribute funds to the ITPE Pen sion Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5072.html">LTV STEEL COMPANY, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>Mary B. With him on the brief were <U>Loretta C. The government appeals the ruling of the Court of Federal Claims that pension payments made to certain former employees of the taxpayer s predecessor companies were exempt from tax liability under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). (LTV Steel) is a subsidiary of LTV Corporation. LTV Steel was formed in 1984 from two other LTV Corporation subsidiaries. Those plans were the products of collective bargaining with the United Steelworkers of America. All four plans were qualified plans under 26 U.S.C. § 401 and therefore were eligible for the benefits of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Those basic benefits were substantially less. Those funds would then be used to pay most of the difference between the basic benefits that the PBGC was paying and the level of benefits required by the two terminated plans for hourly workers. Those employees who retired after the plans were terminated would receive payments making up about 75% of the shortfall.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4765_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His doctors concluded that he was no longer able to perform his job as a truck driver for PacVan. First claiming that Patton was unable to work. Then indicating 2 No. 05 4765 he was. Then finally reversing course again and indicating that he was unable to work. Made a fateful visit to a specialist who will feature large in this tale. Plan participants are entitled to Long Term Disability benefits when they provide notice and proof that they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0577n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are a class of retirees from the Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyMjlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9229_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Plaintiff Appellee was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. That PlaintiffAppellee Marianne Locher was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided by her employer through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. We affirm the judgment of the District Court and write to clarify the standard to be applied by district courts in determining whether to consider evidence outside the administrative record upon a de novo review of factual issues bearing on an administrator's denial of ERISA benefits. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BACKGROUND The following are facts that the District Court found. Was employed as a legal secretary at Katten Muchin & Zavis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Krantz are trustees of the Wright. They are physicians who practiced together as a professional corporation known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar97/95-5252.wpd.html">HOCKETT V. SUN CO., INC.<BR></A><BR>
Announced a new early retirement plan that would have benefited him had he delayed his retirement. Finding that Sun Company made material misrepresentations to Hockett regarding the likely availability of a future retirement plan that was already under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/021535P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This is the second appeal in this case. We held that the action was not time barred. The facts are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will nevertheless restate the facts relevant to this appeal. The trustees concluded that Cavegn had failed to establish that he was totally and completely disabled within the meaning of the Plan. The evidence presented to the trustees in support of Cavegn's applications for benefits indicated that Cavegn's treating physicians and a consulting physician were all of the opinion that he was not disabled at that time but capable of light duty work with certain lifting and moving restrictions. Although he was released for light duty The Honorable James M. Cavegn did not return to work because nothing suitable was available for him at the University of Minnesota. He was not able to return to work. Which is not determinative. He sought a determination that he was disabled as of the date of his original 3 injury on October 28. The district court concluded that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/961102P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(PayFlex) is preempted by the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERISA). We remand for a determination of whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and. All three organizations are based in Omaha. PayFlex claims that MPEHA was an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA1 at the time of the events giving rise to this action. DSA counters that MPEHA was not an ERISA plan.2 1 ERISA defines an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971096.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by Marjorie Christensen from an order granting summary judgment to Northrop Grumman Corporation (Northrop). Christensen is entitled to benefits under one of the plans but not the other and is not entitled to recover for breach of fiduciary duty. I Marjorie Christensen is the surviving spouse of Norman Christensen. Fuller Company (Gafco) in 1953 and was a participant in Gafco's retirement plan from its inception in 1956. Christensen was employed by Gafco or its successors until his death in 1994. When the company was known as American International Contractors. When he was employed by Gafco before Northrop purchased the company. Christensen was a participant in its retirement plan. Christensen was entitled to a specified pension benefit if her husband died before retirement and had met certain eligibility requirements. (1) was continuing in the Service of any of the Employers. (5) was not legally separated from the surviving spouse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-8932.man.html">HARRISON V. DIGITAL HEALTH PLAN (8/9/1999, NO. 98-8932)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the claims were time barred or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The only issue meriting discussion is whether the district court erred when it borrowed Georgia's one year statute of limitations applicable to workers' compensation claims rather than the six year limitations period applicable to actions on a simple contract when it considered the timeliness of Harrison's action for wrongful denial of medical benefits under ERISA.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-8932.man.html">HARRISON V. DIGITAL HEALTH PLAN (8/9/1999, NO. 98-8932)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the claims were time barred or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The only issue meriting discussion is whether the district court erred when it borrowed Georgia's one year statute of limitations applicable to workers' compensation claims rather than the six year limitations period applicable to actions on a simple contract when it considered the timeliness of Harrison's action for wrongful denial of medical benefits under ERISA.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-3659.opa.html">CAGLE V. BRUNER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cagle v. An insurer who pays less than an insured's total loss may not exercise a right of subrogation until the insured is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-3659.opa.html">CAGLE V. BRUNER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cagle v. An insurer who pays less than an insured's total loss may not exercise a right of subrogation until the insured is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFD59E401DF78480882570D5004D7B93/$file/0355963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court dismissed Rodney's case on the ground IN RE: MILES 16185 that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. One of which was that the petitions were filed in bad faith.1 The bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to determine the alleged debtors' rights to attorneys' fees. The causes of action asserted by Melinda and Kelly were based on the bankruptcy court's finding that the involuntary petition against their mother. Was filed in bad faith. On the basis that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. The causes of action asserted by Ann were based solely on the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the involuntary petition against her husband. While these motions were pending. Appellants moved for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) on the premises that the removal was untimely and that there was no federal jurisdiction over damages claims by third parties resulting from the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Holding that it had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041103np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
397 98 (3d Cir. 1992) (noting that once federal law is invoked. The facts alleged and their legal sufficiency are questions on the merits. Or remand a supplemental claim for which there is no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0128p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs here are trustees of various employment benefit funds established by collective bargaining agreements between construction industry employer associations and unions representing their employees. Finding that the plaintiffs were equitably estopped from recovering fringe benefits under the circumstances of this case. Et al. 3 is not a case in which the parties have not had a chance to dispute facts material to the plaintiffs' claim. The undisputed facts show that the defendants have failed to make contributions to the trust funds in question according to the terms of valid collective bargaining agreements. We have examined the record below and find no merit to any of the defendants' asserted legal defenses to their duties under the agreements. Is due to the Trustees acting on behalf of the ERISA funds. All the elements of this circuit's common law test must have been established. Are contractors in the construction industry. The trustees of which are plaintiffs here. The defendants' business and personal bank accounts were garnished to satisfy the judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5008.html">ALLEGHENY TELEDYNE INCORPORATED V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Scott Arnold</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin right:.5in'><o:p> . Argued for plaintiff appellant General Motors Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Alan I. Trafford</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Norman R. Argued for defendant cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Stephen R. For amicus curiae Viacom Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Herbert L. For amicus curiae General Electric Company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Howard J. The trial court entered an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) certifying that it decided a controlling question of law with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. This court granted those petitions.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The GM and Teledyne cases are now before this court in a consolidated appeal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly interpreted the original CAS 413.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/002214P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These are two class actions against Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 and line 9 the citations are corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3655_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Strenuous work (which is why he had received permanent disability benefits for the first 24 months after his fall). There is no doubt that Liberty Life's determination that Rud was capable of performing light or sedentary work despite his back problem was reasonable. That is. The determination was not so off the wall that it could be adjudged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1585.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiff is the Pension Administration Committee of the Sheraton Corporation Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1459.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Motejunas & Doyle was on brief for appellant. Prince & Tye were on brief for appellees Digital Equipment Corporation and Plan Administrator of Digital Equipment Corporation Accident and Sickness Plan. Cohen and McCormack & Epstein were on brief for appellee Core. Once it determined that McMahon was no longer disabled under the terms of its disability policy. McMahon believed that Digital was obligated to relocate her. That she was still disabled. If McMahon's benefits stemmed from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0811p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have set forth five factors that must be considered: (1) the offending parties' culpability or bad faith. 673 (3d Cir. 1983).[fn1] We have further instructed that there is no presumption that a successful plaintiff in an ERISA suit should receive an award in the absence of exceptional circumstances. We have directed that a district court. McPherson's last day of work was August 12. McPherson had worked at the Company since 1959 and was a vested participant in the Employees' Pension Plan of American Re Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0097p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The elements of laches and estoppel are not met. In this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953185P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Business Men's Assurance Company of America (BMA) appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to United of Omaha (United) in a dispute under Missouri state law over which company was responsible to pay health insurance benefits. I. FACTS BMA issued a group Western's group The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. health insurance policy to Western Water Management. 1989. policy was a welfare plan subject to ERISA. This was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-1040.htm">02-1040 -- PATTON V. DENVER POST CORP. -- 04/23/2003<BR></A><BR>
Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY5MTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6914-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That she was improperly denied long term disability benefits. She was fifty five years old. She was a member of Local 32B J. The Fund's Summary Plan Description (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They claim that the settlement was structured in such a way that the award received by The Honorable Michael J. Sitting by designation. 1 each class member was neither income nor wages. Partial summary judgment on liability was granted in favor of the class. A special master was appointed to assist in the settlement of damages issues or to recommend a procedure to expedite their resolution. The settlement plan was approved by the district court in July 1992. Although the special master did not have the authority to determine the ultimate tax consequences of the settlement award. The basic award was calculated by using these two factors as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-4030.html">THORPE V. RETIREMENT PLAN OF THE PILLSBURY CO.<BR></A><BR>
Thorpe on the issue of whether Plaintiff was entitled to early retirement benefits under Defendants' retirement and welfare plans. Thorpe was employed as a production worker at the Ogden. Plaintiff was represented by the American Federation of Grain Workers (AFL CIO CLC) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1666.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Klickstein & Levy were on brief. Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief. The district court dismissed the suit after reviewing the trust agreement and concluding that the trustee was not subject to ERISA liability as a fiduciary or co fiduciary in respect to the harms alleged. The Bank wrote to Hawthorne stating that: Our appraiser is prepared to begin his review on Monday. If he is not permitted to begin his review by Friday. We believe that we have no recourse but to seek the advice of the Department of Labor as to our concerns about Hawthorne's instructing us to continue to report the real estate at values supplied by Hawthorne as investment manager.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021486.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that the claims against it and related defendants were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeal was consolidated with a National Labor Relations Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2321_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 by Transpersonnel. The two count complaint sought judicial declarations that: (1) Roadway was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUxMDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5100-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their assorted aches became a legal pain in the neck when their claims for chiropractor coverage were denied. Both Nechis and Mady had selected plans that covered chiropractic treatment from providers outside plan networks and both were treated by out ofnetwork chiropractors in late 2002. Each of which includes coverage for chiropractic care that is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1941p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is an expedited appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034196p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0060p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this case is whether the temporary restraining order requested by plaintiffs is an authorized form of relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs and putative class members are former employees of Formica Corporation and participants in Formica's benefit pension plan who received overpayments of benefits each month for between eight and seventeen years. Which is the subject of this appeal. Concluding that plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Was not authorized by the Act. Our decision in this case depends entirely on whether we agree with the district court's conclusion that the requested relief is legal. Therefore is not authorized by the Act. I. A 2003 audit of Formica's pension plan found that 440 of the 624 retirees in its defined pension plan dating from 1985 were receiving incorrect benefits. Which is emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. It also reduced the payments of those who were overpaid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034196pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044389p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Due to what she claims is the plan administrator's breach of fiduciary duty. Does she then have standing to sue the administrator under ERISA § 502(a). Relying on what she claims was a promise from Blue Cross to provide her with 100% lifetime health benefits. Appellant Elizabeth Melley is the widow of a Blue Cross retiree. Both women lost their lifetime health benefits when the Blue Cross Plan was retroactively changed on January 1. Although appellants may have made retirement decisions based on a belief that their retirement medical benefits would continue for their lifetimes. We agree with the District Court's determination that they do not have statutory standing to bring this action. We will. The Plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Blue Cross is a Plan fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A).1 Originally. The formula was changed in 1999 to require a Congress defines a plan fiduciary as a person: (i) [who] exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983610.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coal miners 4 who are now disabled. The main issue in this appeal is whether these miners are eligible to receive health benefits under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit (Coal) Act of 1992. The chief issue before us was addressed in recent decisions of the Fourth and District of Columbia Circuits. The 1947 NBCWA was modified in 1950. Both the 1947 and the 1950 NBCWA's were financed by a per ton levy on coal produced by signatory operators that is. Were subject to the 5 NBCWA. The benefits were subject to cancellation or change depending on the discretionary judgment of the NBCWA's trustees. While the UMWA 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19965131.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Collins were employed as outside sales representatives for Air The district court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on Gitlitz's ADEA and Florida Civil Rights Act claims. These matters are not before us on appeal. The other issues are properly before us pursuant to an order of partial final judgment by the district court. They were not permitted to take early retirement and begin receiving pension benefits and also become independent contractors/BDAs. They were forced to choose one or the other.3 Plaintiffs filed their respective complaints in 1994. Alleging that Air France's elimination of their sales representative positions and the manner in which it was done constituted discrimination in violation of the ADEA and ERISA. 4 which rescinded the first letter and stated that Collins had another 90 Plaintiff Gitlitz was 59 years old and Plaintiff Collins was 56 years old when the positions were eliminated. Concluding that Collins's second EEOC letter was ineffective. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4127_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court dismissed Mote's claims against Aetna upon finding that Aetna was not a proper party to the action. I. Brenda Mote was a human resource generalist with Arthur Andersen LLP until she ceased working on April 10. Which was administered by Aetna. Aetna shall act as the Plan's fiduciary and be vested with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/972153P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a closely held corporation in Jackson. Mercantile Bank was the trustee of Lenco's Employees' Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). 2 alleging that Mercantile was liable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Secretary alleged that Mercantile continued to have fiduciary duties to the ESOP despite the appointment of Mueller as successor trustee and thus was liable. Because Mercantile failed to take action to prevent it and also because Mercantile failed to ameliorate the buy back's consequences to the ESOP when it was reappointed trustee of the ESOP after Mueller's death in 1985. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 23 2 Mercantile can be liable for the buy back only if the buy back was unlawful. The buy back was unlawful only if Mueller.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1237.htm">01-1237 -- HALL V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
UNUM's principal argument is that the district court improperly considered evidence outside of the administrative record relied upon by UNUM when it terminated Hall's benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTA2OTAtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-0690-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958347.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Virginia Ann Meehan is a Chapter 7 debtor. The contested property is debtor's individual retirement account (IRA). Which debtor claims is excluded from property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(c)(2). Both the bankruptcy court and the district court rejected debtor's argument and held that the IRA was included in her bankruptcy estate. We hold that debtor's IRA is excluded from the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(c)(2) because of the restriction on its transferability. I. FACTS The facts are not in dispute. Included in debtor's schedules was an IRA. Which was opened in 1983 and valued Honorable John F. The parties stipulated that debtor's IRA was one defined by § 408 of the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26 of the United States Code].1 II. Standard of Review The sole question at issue in this case is whether 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(c)(2) excludes from the property of a bankruptcy estate an IRA which is subject to a restriction on transfer by a state statute. Is a matter of law. novo review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043243p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because she was on long term disability leave. She was not accruing benefits and so did not qualify for the early retirement incentive under the terms of the plan. Finding that Latrobe's decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Who were out on short term disability leave at the relevant time. The Court determined that these other employees were similarly situated to Vitale and that the decision to deny her benefits was therefore arbitrary and capricious. We will reverse. Was not arbitrary and Latrobe's retirement plan is governed by provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. When she was severely injured in a car accident. Which was then overfunded. Which are paid out of operating funds. As it was adopted. While she was on long term disability leave. She was informed that she had been denied benefits because. She was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1699.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Cullen & Butters was on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellees. On the grounds that Appellants' claims are time barred under ERISA's six year statute of limitations. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are summarized in the light most favorable to Appellants. Was formed as a pension and profit sharing plan for the employees of the J. It is subject to ERISA. The Plan's accounts were handled by Hegenbart. If the recommendation was not accepted. At no time was Hegenbart given power of attorney or discretionary authority over the accounts. The Plan was charged commissions of about 3.5% for the sale of the CATS purchased in 1985. The first was purchased in June of 1985. (ii) there was not expected to be a public market for their investment. (iii) there were risks involved. Appellants were sent prospectuses which similarly disclosed risks involved when they purchased $40. The record shows that the portfolio review dated October 1988 lists as the market value what was actually the face amount of the interests in the limited partnerships.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/993831P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court determined that the Taylors' petition constitutes a substantial abuse of the bankruptcy system because the Taylors are able to pay their creditors. 982 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that dismissal of a bankruptcy petition pursuant to § 707(b) is appropriate when a reviewing court finds that debtors possess the ability to pay their creditors). The question of whether a bankruptcy court may include an ERISA qualified pension in its calculation of a petitioner's disposable income is an issue of first impression in this circuit. III 1997) and in scattered sections of Title 26 U.S.C.). 24 3 2 held that a debtor's disability payments could be considered in the disposable income calculus even though the payments were classified as exempt from creditors under South Dakota state law and. We concluded that the relevant inquiry is not whether the payments are exempt from creditors in a Chapter 7 proceeding but whether the challenged payments would constitute income in a hypothetical proceeding under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-5131.man.html">GITLITZ V. COMPAGNIE NATIONALE AIR FRANCE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gitlitz v. Collins were employed as outside sales representatives for Air France for 35 and 22 years. They were not permitted to take early retirement and begin receiving pension benefits and also become independent contractors/BDAs. They were forced to choose one or the other.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1457a.html">JOHN J. FLYNN AND J. H. THOMAS V. COMMISSIONER OF IRS<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0337n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Del Rio's claims were without merit and granted summary judgment in favor of Toledo Edison. We conclude that none of Del Rio's arguments are persuasive. The district court's grant of judgment in favor of Toledo Edison is AFFIRMED. Toledo Edison's pending motion to strike the joint appendix or dismiss the appeal because of omissions in the joint appendix is DISMISSED as moot. BACKGROUND Del Rio was employed by Toledo Edison. Del Rio was a member of a union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-5131.man.html">GITLITZ V. COMPAGNIE NATIONALE AIR FRANCE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gitlitz v. Collins were employed as outside sales representatives for Air France for 35 and 22 years. They were not permitted to take early retirement and begin receiving pension benefits and also become independent contractors/BDAs. They were forced to choose one or the other.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993518P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
III 1997) and in scattered sections of Title 26 U.S.C.). 2 1 The district court granted the plan's motion for summary judgment after concluding that Cavegn's claims are barred by a two year statute of limitations. The plan administrator denied Cavegn's application after concluding that he failed to demonstrate that he was totally disabled. The trustees once again affirmed the plan's finding that Cavegn failed to prove that he was totally disabled. ] the Trustees are treating this as a new application for disability pension.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-12191.man.html">BURKS V. AM. CAST IRON PIPE CO. (5/31/2000, NO. 99-12191)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> Appellants/Plaintiffs are a group of retirees and their dependents who claim that American Cast Iron Pipe Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995920.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is Linda Pryzbowski's appeal of two orders of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey: (1) the December 3. Healthcare for its delay in approving requested services after determining that those claims were completely preempted under S 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981188.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although she was Kirby's surviving spouse for the purpose of the Plans. She waived her rights to benefits under the Plans when she instituted a family court action seeking an equitable division of marital property and did not appeal from the ruling therein.2 We agree that Graef is a surviving spouse for the purpose of 1 For convenience. Because no issue has been raised regarding Albemarle's determination that Graef's claim for benefits under the Retirement Plan was materially similar to her claim for benefits under the Savings Plan. I. Kirby and Graef were married on May 10. Graef claimed that the 1987 divorce decree was null and void. Included among the assets considered as marital property was Kirby's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-12191.man.html">BURKS V. AM. CAST IRON PIPE CO. (5/31/2000, NO. 99-12191)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> Appellants/Plaintiffs are a group of retirees and their dependents who claim that American Cast Iron Pipe Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3879-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3879-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1221.htm">99-1221 -- WILLMAR ELECTRIC SERVICE INC. V. COOKE -- 05/16/2000<BR></A><BR>
</strong>District Judge. <p> <center><u><strong> </strong></u></center> <p> The issue in this appeal is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963027P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stanley Rabushka's qui tam suit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against the Crane Company is before us for the third time. CF&I was a profitable company until 1982. We summarized CF&I's financial condition at the time of the spin off and its subsequent financial history in Rabushka I: At that time [1985] CF&I's unfunded pension liability was stated at approximately $46 million. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] terminated CF&I's pension plan and assumed those plan obligations that were protected by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. On the grounds that the plan had not met the minimum funding standards and would be unable to pay benefits when due and because the possible long run loss to the PBGC could reasonably be expected to increase unreasonably if the plan was not terminated. The PBGC stated that it was terminating the plan
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/568FCC50E02BB2DC88256DE8006F809F/$file/0056988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reaffirming our earlier treatment of the appropriate standard of review in ERISA cases where benefits are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxODYtY3YucGRm/03-9186-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a New York corporation with its principal place of business located in New York City. ¶ 2. Was hired by Horizon in July 1998 as its Director of Human Resources and Administration. ¶ 6. Which is regulated by the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act. Nicolaou was also a participant in the Plan. ¶ 9. Nicolaou
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912191.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: Appellants/Plaintiffs are a group of retirees and their dependents who claim that American Cast Iron Pipe Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/013065u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Burdge's claims in the District Court were consolidated with those of William Conery and Frank Fusco against Local 464A. Burdge's membership was suspended from February 1953 to July 1956. When he was reinstated. A hearing was held but Burdge and his attorney left before its conclusion. The pension plan modified the application he submitted previously and his pension benefits were recalculated. Burdge testified at his deposition that he believes that he is entitled to that amount because other retired union members received similar amounts. Burdge's calculations apparently included periods during which he was not a union member and may have included other errors. Although the union was overly cautious and may have been wrong in requiring specific authorization for release of pension information to a member's attorney. Burdge and his attorney received everything that was of any relevance far in advance of his retirement. Burdge's claims under 29 U.S.C. 501 relating to Local 464's breach of contract action against co plaintiff Fusco are also without merit for essentially the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of February 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/033411U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Gene Iverson was a long term employee of Melroe Company. Melroe was a division of Clark Equipment Company. Whose corporate parent is Ingersoll Rand Company. The Spra Coupe line was falling short of that target. Part of this process was the laying off of two district managers. Iverson was notified that he was going to be laid off. Iverson was given a one year recall possibility for his previous job. Was told that prospects of a recall were not good. When he was laid off. At which time all district managers were laid off. Iverson was not contacted and did not apply for the positions. At which he was informed he would be laid off. The district court found the error to have been corrected by January 8. The error was corrected by July 1998. Full distribution of the pension was taken in September 1998. Was age discrimination. The EEOC closed its investigation and issued Iverson a Notice of Right to Sue. 3 The instant case was filed on April 26. Ingersoll repeatedly stated its position that the wrong party was named in the age discrimination claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1429p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether PECo. The misrepresentations alleged were that PECo had denied. That it was seriously considering an early retirement program. The district court concluded that PECo was seriously considering an early retirement program as of March 12. Who was told that no change was under consideration. We will therefore reverse the decision of the district court. We will enter judgment for defendant. Suggesting that they delay their retirement until the company's early retirement package was finalized. Or at least that it was considering a package. Holding that PECo could be liable for breach of fiduciary duty if the company represented that no early retirement plan was being considered at a time when the plan was in fact under serious consideration. 944 F.2d at 133. The facts we recite here were found by the district court. The vast majority were stipulated. Paquette testified that PECo was then in the process of completing one nuclear plant and restarting another.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM3MjAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3720-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the issue of whether an ERISA plan beneficiary is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Chapman v. Even assuming without deciding that equitable tolling applies to time limits that are specified in ERISA plan provisions. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Appellant Milma Garcia Ramos (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0043n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The motion to dismiss was granted on the grounds that the complaint did not state adequate claims that BCBSM acted as a fiduciary under ERISA with The Honorable Jane A. We conclude that the Fund's complaint sets forth sufficient allegations that BCBSM was acting as a fiduciary in control of fund assets when it assessed and failed to disclose the OTG subsidy fees. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Appellant is a multiemployer trust fund1 administered pursuant to ERISA2 and the Labor The complaint states that the Fund intends to pursue class status on behalf of other similarly situated funds. Or program which . . . [is] maintained by an employer or by an employee organization . . . for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries. The Fund was an insured group customer of BCBSM.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0242p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of whom are shareholders and former employees of Mosler. Was used to fund employee retirement plans. Thus was properly removable to federal court. Was involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53E7FF970D9917B988256E5A00707A20/$file/9955812.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paul Revere initiated an investigation of whether GroszSalomon was disabled under the plan. The doctor who performed the 1995 IME concluded that Grosz Salomon was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/011518.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Conrail announced a voluntary separation program or a buy out which provided separation incentives to qualified employees that were more generous than the severance package offered to the involuntarily terminated plaintiffs. The VSP benefits were available to those individuals who were employees as of February 21. Conrail expanded the program to individuals who were employees as of January 2. An employee had to have fifteen or more years of continuous work service to be eligible. Thirteen plaintiffs resolved their claims against Conrail and have not appealed. 3 Plan to include the VSP. The thirty plaintiffs who had been involuntarily terminated in July 1995 filed this action.2 They claimed that the decision by Conrail to reduce its aging work force
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D088806126FDB3AC882569E300619405/$file/9955812.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paul Revere initiated an investigation of whether GroszSalomon was disabled under the plan. The doctor who performed the 1995 IME concluded that Grosz Salomon was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0303p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal shows that the distinction between law and equity can still have consequences. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0404a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of whom are shareholders and former employees of Mosler. Was used to fund employee retirement plans. Thus was properly removable to federal court. Was involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1653_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruttenberg's claim was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912191.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * Appellants/Plaintiffs are a group of retirees and their dependents who claim that American Cast Iron Pipe Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/457E979B78FE762688256C7500830703/$file/0056988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was not diagnosed until 1995. Doctors determined that the cause was lumbar spinal stenosis.1 His doctors agree that his Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the lumbar or cervical spinal canal that causes compression of nerve roots and resulting back pain. 1 6 JEBIAN v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY stenosis is congenital rather than the result of injury. Jebian was diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disc disease. Jebian was a participant in an employee benefit plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021731p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant HMO. I. Facts Plaintiff appellant Donna Horvath is the benefits administrator at a law firm and a member of the HMO of 3 defendant appellee Keystone Health Plan East. The Keystone HMO is the only healthcare plan offered to employees of Horvath's firm. Was provided with information regarding the plan's structure. Procedural History Horvath's complaint was filed on January 21. It alleges that Keystone is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-6178.man.html">BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA V. SANDERS (4/13/1998, NO. 97-6178)<BR></A><BR>
The Sanderses were participants in a health benefits plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-6178.man.html">BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA V. SANDERS (4/13/1998, NO. 97-6178)<BR></A><BR>
The Sanderses were participants in a health benefits plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031406.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found no abuse of discretion in the Trustees' decision that Buzzard was not entitled to a disability pension under the 1974 Pension Plan. We find that the denial of disability pension benefits in this case is not supported by substantial evidence. Mine Accident and Subsequent Medical Treatment Buzzard was employed as a laborer in the West Virginia coal mines from October 20. Buzzard was immediately hospitalized and treated for injuries to his head. Schmidt subsequently noted in a letter to the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Fund that although his physical examination of Buzzard was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4217_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0132n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Defendant Tri County is a multi employer ERISA welfare fund in Northeast Ohio. The fund was established in the mid 1960s for construction employers operating in the Summit. The four labor unions that participate in Tri County are Bricklayers Local 7. Tri County requires every contributing employer to sign a written document that sets forth the basis on which it will make contributions to the fund. The documents are either a collective bargaining agreement with one of the four labor unions. Who is obligated under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Duer is a family owned masonry contractor in the Akron. Duer's hourly production workers were unionized employees represented by various construction unions such as Bricklayers and Laborers. When Duer's bricklayers were represented by Bricklayers Local 7. Laborers Local 894 and Bricklayers Local 7 have actively attempted to organize Duer's laborers and bricklayers. Holland is also President of the Tri County Building Trades Council. Trustee Jack Green was also the Business Agent for Bricklayers Local 7.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1984.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in this ERISA suit are former participants in the welfare plan of the Carpenters Welfare Fund of Illinois. The plaintiffs are suing the Fund (and others who need not be discussed separately) for the value of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3790.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was diagnosed with Small Airways Disease and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Reich was limited to light work and required continuous oxygen. Reich's doctor confirmed that these restrictions were permanent. Stating that the company had determined that there were no jobs within the bargaining unit that Reich could safely perform. Ladish was represented by its in house attorney. Bitters was responsible for the day to day processing of pension benefit applications. In the course of the suit Ladish explained that it was not paying Reich disability benefits because the Plan covered only those employees who were found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A27674028FF3F7588256F0F00793F4F/$file/0257183.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
VONDERHARR were injured. The Trust is an employee benefit plan governed by Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1585p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether the denial of a claim for benefits under a Long Term Disability Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1929p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court initially denied the motion on the ground these counsel were entitled to and would receive counsel fees to be paid by Spang under the statutory fee provision for prevailing parties under ERISA. Therefore were not also entitled to recovery from the common fund. The court maintained essentially the same position but added that it was exercising its equitable powers in reaching its decision. The threshold issue before us is whether we have jurisdiction to consider this interesting issue at this time. Sought reasonable attorneys' fees under the fee shifting provision of ERISA and also
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTc4MDlfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-7809_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have to resolve on this appeal a dispute between plaintiffs public school teachers and the defendant labor union to which they belong. The issue before us is whether the employee benefit plan which defendants set up and administered using funds from the public school district in which plaintiffs were employed was subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). BACKGROUND Plaintiff Anna Gualandi is a New York public school teacher in the Shoreham Wading River Central School District (School District). Plaintiff Claudia Travers was a public school teacher See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1). Both plaintiffs have been members of a labor union called the Shoreham Wading River Teachers Association (SWRTA or union). Have participated in an employee benefit plan called the SWRTA Out of Pocket Reimbursement Fund (Plan). Defendants are the union and its officers. All of which entities and individuals have been involved with administering the Plan. Which is the subject of this litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQyNDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4241-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are twenty three retired staff employees of Local 100 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031985.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
First line of footnote *
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0109p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an order by a district court remanding the case to the plan administrator for a determination of the claimant's eligibility a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291? Because we conclude that such an order is not a final decision. Challenging its determination that he was ineligible for disability benefits under the pension plan. Contending that NPF's determination was arbitrary and capricious because it did not apply the definition of disability specified in the plan. The order was stamped with a statement indicating that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062674P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that these claims are not The Honorable Ross A. That the state law claims are preempted by the federal statute. The Trust is governed by ERISA. Which is regulated by the Department of Labor (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQyNDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4241-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are twenty three retired staff employees of Local 100 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042643P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court2 granted the motion because it concluded that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to self funded ERISA plans. The district court3 granted the motion and alternatively held that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to Marriott's self funded ERISA plan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Terry was moved to a new position. On arrival was sent to the hospital by Bayer's nurse. Terry was cared for by both his primary care physician. Ousler's treatment plan was originally conservative. He was promoted in 1988 to a position maintaining desk top computers. Terry was now required to move containers of computer boards around the workplace. A second arthroscopic surgery was soon performed. Torn cartilage and bone chips were removed from his knee. Terry is in almost constant pain. Is unable to stand. The Summary Plan Description (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1838.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan is administered in Atlanta. The Plan provides pension benefits for Delta pilots and is administered entirely in Atlanta. There is no work related reason for pilots to live in the Southern District of Illinois. Johnson is currently based in Atlanta. The Plan contended that the Southern District of Illinois was not a proper venue under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). The Plan also submitted that the Northern District of Georgia offered the most convenient venue to litigate the case because all of the Plan's documents and all witnesses associated with the Plan were located there and all of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' complaint occurred there. The venue provision of Title I of ERISA allows plaintiffs to lay venue
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993034.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue on this appeal is the requirement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Inc. in 1997 under the belief that he was entitled to the severance benefits established in 1988 by J.C. Penney under ERISA claiming that the cancellation was void for lack of effective notice of that material change in the program. He also contends that he is entitled to the benefits under an equitable estoppel theory. The following facts are not in dispute. These employee concerns emanated from the company's announced relocation of its home office from New York to Texas and from the vigorous acquisition 2 activity that was occurring at that time in the retail merchandise industry. The program addressed these concerns by providing a lump sum severance payment if an eligible employee was terminated within two years of a change of control.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-1457a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Kenneth L. Appellants argue that their employer somehow conferred standing on them by mailing them a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3879.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were paid by WalMart's health and welfare benefit plan. The cases were consolidated. At that time she was employed by Wal Mart Stores. The Plan is a self funded employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031926.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Would have corrected any alleged misstatements made by Karen Yates. Weeks argues that Defendants should not have been granted summary judgment because Advance Stores. Weeks also argues that the grant of summary judgment was improper because. Such a duty was created by Advance Stores' customary practice of informing employees about this right. Weeks argues that the district court erred by concluding that she and Weeks were not entitled to rely on Yates' alleged misstatements about the termination of coverage under Weeks' health and life insurance plans because Yates did not qualify as an ERISA fiduciary. I. Perry Weeks was a full time employee of Advance Stores from October 17. He was initially hired to work at Advance Stores' Roanoke distribution center but was later transferred to the road crew. Which contained her contact information should he have any questions concerning the information contained in the employee handbook. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1448.htm">98-1448 -- WILLIAMS V. IMHOFF -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR>
At issue is the arbitrability of claims asserted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Former securities exchange employees who were terminated from their employment by defendants and who allegedly did not receive proper valuation for stock held in their former employer's profit sharing plan. Gene Andrist are all former employees of Hanifen. That is required to be arbitrated under the rules. Plaintiffs were allegedly encouraged to. Plaintiffs assert the Hanifen Plan was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/003430.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The background of the problem is encapsulated in the following notice. That is routinely sent to all parties and their counsel in all cases in this Court when the docketing notice is sent. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL: You are hereby advised that the Honorable Marjorie O. Advises the parties and counsel in this case that Judge Rendell will automatically recuse in all cases where the aggregate campaign contribution to Rendell `95 by a party or law firm repr esenting a party. Is $2501.00 or greater. Judge Rendell will not automatically recuse unless 2 the parties or counsel in the case file an objection.* Mr. Rendell does not currently hold elective office but is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Judge Rendell will be automatically disqualified from participation in any aspect of this appeal. Judge Rendell will participate if the case is assigned to her. You will be deemed to have waived objection to Judge Rendell's participation in any aspect of this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company was liable to Julie Parke under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. For prejudgment interest during the period in which Parke's benefits were wrongfully delayed. 2) the First Reliance's obligation to pay benefits is not at issue and has not been disputed since early in the litigation. 2002 judgment was entered. Because we have already denied Parke's motion to dismiss the appeal on this ground. We will simply point out that jurisdiction is proper when an appeal is filed within 30 days after a final decision is rendered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2003) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1563p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we are asked to distinguish Ryan or in the alternative to reconsider our holding in Ryan. Was injured in a motorcycle accident. Understand and acknowledge that my medical plan has a reimbursement provision which provides that medical benefits paid under the plan are to be reimbursed up to the amount of such benefits paidfrom any payments. A case may arise under ERISA where the suit is filed by a plan sponsor who is also a fiduciary. A plan sponsor is a fiduciary only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Creedon & Murphy were on brief. With whom Krakow & Souris was on brief. Belmont was obligated to pay into Union employee benefit funds for the benefit of its workers. When Belmont stopped making the payments it was obligated to make to the fund. It sued Belmont on the agreement and Algar on the theory that Algar was an alter ego of Belmont. That there was never an enforceable agreement. Is applicable in cases brought under ERISA where the basis for imposition of liability is also the alter ego doctrine. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and will draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Algar was formed in 1990 and remains active today. Belmont was formed in 1992 and was active until the end of 1993. Belmont and Algar are family businesses owned and operated by members of the Bota. Belmont was formally owned by Lionel Diaz (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-9152.opa.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Those claims were preempted by ERISA. Is the president. Morstein was also one of two employees of Graphic. The policy was to be administered by National Insurance Services. The policy offered by Hankins was issued to Graphic. Graphic paid the initial premium.<p> Over one year after the policy was issued. National then rescinded the policy and refunded the premium payments to Graphic that were made on behalf of Morstein. She further alleges that Hankins and the Shaw Agency were negligent in processing her application for insurance and that she has state law claims against them for negligence and fraud.<p> Morstein filed an action in state court. The district court denied Morstein's motion to remand and found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment as to the state law claims against them. Those claims are preempted by ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044103np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Minnis alleged in his complaint that the monthly pension payments were to begin on September 1. Baldwin Brothers removed the case to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on the ground that the state law breach of contract claim asserted in Minnis' complaint was actually a claim for the denial of benefits due to him under the terms of an employee benefits plan and. Was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-6536.opn.html">BUTERO V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INS. CO. (5/10/1999, NO. 97-6536)<BR></A><BR>
The replacement policy would have a portability feature.</P> <P> Based on this information. Full time employees with 90 days' tenure who were not enrolled under the old policy were invited to enroll. 000) and who was eligible (full time employees with 90 days' tenure). The form contained a signature space at the bottom to indicate that the enrollment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal involves an interpleader action filed by a pension plan seeking a declaration of which of two claimants is decedent. Finding that Rita is Douglas Durden's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-9152.opa.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Those claims were preempted by ERISA. Is the president. Morstein was also one of two employees of Graphic. The policy was to be administered by National Insurance Services. The policy offered by Hankins was issued to Graphic. Graphic paid the initial premium.<p> Over one year after the policy was issued. National then rescinded the policy and refunded the premium payments to Graphic that were made on behalf of Morstein. She further alleges that Hankins and the Shaw Agency were negligent in processing her application for insurance and that she has state law claims against them for negligence and fraud.<p> Morstein filed an action in state court. The district court denied Morstein's motion to remand and found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment as to the state law claims against them. Those claims are preempted by ERISA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2160.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Grosso with whom Orally & Grosso was on brief for appellee. *Of the Eighth Circuit. Is a member of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022137.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that Sonoco's claims were completely preempted by ERISA. Because Sonoco's claims are not completely preempted. Sponsors an ERISA governed health care plan (the 1 PHP is apparently now known as Carolina Care Plan. PHP was obligated. It was cancelling the Contract. Sonoco declined PHP's offer and now alleges that it was compelled to secure alternative insurance coverage for 2001 at substantially higher rates than those agreed upon in the Contract. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-6536.opn.html">BUTERO V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INS. CO. (5/10/1999, NO. 97-6536)<BR></A><BR>
The replacement policy would have a portability feature.</P> <P> Based on this information. Full time employees with 90 days' tenure who were not enrolled under the old policy were invited to enroll. 000) and who was eligible (full time employees with 90 days' tenure). The form contained a signature space at the bottom to indicate that the enrollment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2420941536B4FA2588256A46005D0DED/$file/9955963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4302.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The representatives of a class of employees and their dependents who were participants in a medical benefit plan sponsored and funded by their employer and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Were left with significant. Holdeman is the class representative of a group of employees. The hotel and casino were owned and operated by State Line Hotel. Claims for benefits were paid in the order in which they were received. Claims above a certain dollar amount were covered. Holdeman and the other class members were covered under the State Line & Silver Smith Casino Resorts Employee Benefits Plan (the Plan). Was self funded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-1105.htm">97-1105 -- ADAMS V. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO. -- 07/16/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062337p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History Howard Graden was a Conexant employee until September 2002 and a participant in the Conexant Retirement Saving Plan until October 2004. Conexant's is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/001382.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this case is whether ERISA's definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052923P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have use of all of his limbs. He was examined by Janina B. Who noted that Alexander was fifty one years old. Was over six feet tall. That it appeared as though anterior branches of his greater saphenous vein were dilated. She stated that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B94966DAF35821688256E5A00707B29/$file/9955963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033408P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in this consolidated action are: Noreen Maki. The defendant is ALLETE. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs worked for the defendant in the 1950s and 1960s until they were terminated pursuant to company policies which first prohibited married women. These policies were abrogated by the defendant after the plaintiffs were terminated. The plaintiffs were rehired by the defendant in the 1980s. They have all since retired and are collecting pension benefits from the defendant. Stenstrom had not yet received a right to sue letter from the EEOC when she brought this action so her Title VII claims were brought under the MHRA. 2 1 The defendant's pension plan provides benefits based on years of continuous employment. The defendant amended the plan to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0061p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this appeal is whether an employee. Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22C926A6C658918C88256AE7007D630E/$file/9955963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982173.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Seeking to reverse the Committee's decision not to include years of service while represented by the United Mine Workers of America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/891B04A1DF2186F188256E5A00707D14/$file/9955963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12B5E979646FEF1D88256FCF00033CA7/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1458p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claimed that when ETS notified him that his employment was terminated. He was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1319.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dobbs are beneficiaries of a group health insurance policy sold and underwritten by Anthem and purchased through Mr. Arguing that their state law claims against Anthem are not preempted by federal law. <hr> II. DISCUSSION Whether federal law preempts the Dobbses' state law claims is a question of law. The threshold question in this case is whether federal or state law applies to an employee benefit plan established and maintained by a tribe for the benefit of its employees. The next question is whether it preempts the state law causes of action in this case. 29 U.S.C. 1144(a) (specifying that ERISA provisions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-11734.man.html">ADAMS V. THIOKOL CORP. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-11734)<BR></A><BR>
Lockheed stated that it planned to fill all of the required positions with existing subcontractor personnel.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-11734.man.html">ADAMS V. THIOKOL CORP. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-11734)<BR></A><BR>
Lockheed stated that it planned to fill all of the required positions with existing subcontractor personnel.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062273P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Review point out that Fischer was uncomfortable with assignments that required quick responses and that he had difficulties with coordination. That his communication skills were In early 2002. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/023897P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Debra Shaw brought the present Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972647.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is an appeal from an October 22. Appellants are the Trustees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911734.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. as a result of a name change in 2 1998. positions with existing subcontractor personnel.2 Lockheed stated their intent was to offer equivalent compensation and the applicable Lockheed benefits package. The transition was to be completed by September 30. Plaintiffs were notified that they would need to submit an employment application. Were later required to interview with Lockheed and take a physical and a drug test in order to be hired. Plaintiffs were employed by Thiokol until 12:00 a.m. With no break in service and at equal or greater pay rates.3 The contract for the sale of the assets was dated October 1. Plaintiffs were all participants in Thiokol's Plan. A self funded severance pay plan which is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined under § 3(1) of ERISA. There were approximately forty Thiokol employees who were not offered positions by Lockheed. Who received separation pay and who are not part of this suit. Plaintiffs do not disagree that the actual pay rates were equal or greater. Received less vacation benefits (which were modified after the denial of separation benefits).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-6072.opa.html">COLLINS V. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Collins v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Collins was an ACIPCO employee and a participant in the Plan. Which is self funded and administered by ACIPCO. After Collins was seriously injured on the job in 1987. A. The relevant Plan provision is as follows:<p> <i>Adjustment to Benefits.</i> Notwithstanding the provisions of this Plan. In the event that a Participant who is receiving a pension hereunder is or becomes eligible for a disability benefit under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-6072.opa.html">COLLINS V. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Collins v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Collins was an ACIPCO employee and a participant in the Plan. Which is self funded and administered by ACIPCO. After Collins was seriously injured on the job in 1987. A. The relevant Plan provision is as follows:<p> <i>Adjustment to Benefits.</i> Notwithstanding the provisions of this Plan. In the event that a Participant who is receiving a pension hereunder is or becomes eligible for a disability benefit under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/021824P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At that time Melton was transitioning from manufacturing for the bicycle and furniture industries to manufacturing for the automotive industry. When its stock was valued at $109. The employee owners of Melton have shared in the company's success. Melton stock is allocated to individual ESOP accounts according to a formula. 65% of the shares are concentrated in the accounts of only nine people. The individual defendants are responsible for managing both Melton and the ESOP. Gary Rufkahr is the president and is also a director of Melton. Have each been ESOP fiduciaries. Randy Folkmann is an officer and an ESOP administrative committee member. Martin have been responsible for setting employee salaries including their own. The defense expert acknowledged that the individual defendants have been compensated at least 56% above the median rate for similar positions in comparable companies. The annual appraisals of the company's stock have been performed every year by Everett Mathews. Plaintiffs' expert calculated that the actual value per share was over $200.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911734.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
There were approximately forty Thiokol employees who were not offered positions by Lockheed. Who received separation pay and who are not part of this suit. intent was to offer equivalent compensation and the applicable Lockheed benefits package. The transition was to be completed by September 30. Plaintiffs were notified that they would need to submit an employment application. Were later required to interview with Lockheed and take a physical and a drug test in order to be hired. Plaintiffs were employed by Thiokol until 12:00 a.m. With no break in service and at equal or greater pay rates.3 The contract for the sale of the assets was dated October 1. Plaintiffs were all participants in Thiokol's Plan. A self funded severance pay plan which is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined under § 3(1) of ERISA. The employee is offered a position (whether or not such position is comparable to the prior position) by the acquiring or resulting company. The Plan also designated a Plan Administrator as the person who was responsible for interpreting the terms of the Plan and who determined eligibility for benefits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6064.htm">97-6064 -- MCGRAW V. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA -- 03/06/1998<BR></A><BR>
The Disease</strong> <p> Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. That is. It is believed. To have problems with balance and bladder control. Are interrupted by remissions. Much less common is a chronic progressive form in which spinal cord and cerebellar dysfunction predominate. The course of MS is unpredictable.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053614P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan initially determined that Tracy was entitled to the benefits. James Marier was married to Kathleen Marier for twelve years and developed a close relationship to Kathleen's adult daughter. He named her as personal representative of his will in 2002 and 2003. He was not close to them. The record suggests that there was significant tension between Tracy and James's siblings. James had 2 decided to remove his siblings from his will and to name Tracy as his sole residuary beneficiary. Stating that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022139.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting in particular that she was discharged for complaining about and for refusing to violate the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Contending that the district court erred by concluding that her wrongful discharge claim was completely preempted by ERISA. I. Karen King was employed in Marriott's benefits department for many years. Was by all accounts an excellent employee prior to 1999. King was promoted to Vice President of Benefits Resources. The responsibilities in the benefits department were divided between King and a Ms. This division of responsibilities apparently was unsatisfactory to the two subordinates. Alleging that her termination was wrongful and violative of public policy under Maryland law. INC. were completely preempted by ERISA. Although the plaintiff is generally the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052153np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rizzo have appealed the entry of the preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only they have appealed. 3 1 Byrne. The preliminary results of the audit detailed several unnecessary or overpaid positions at the Funds and an unnecessary satellite office.2 These preliminary results were not shared with any of appellants until November 12. The following specific problems had been identified: · Edward Dwyer was paid $119. · Isaac Boracus was paid $123. Inc. was paid $158. Dennis Jastrzebski was paid $123. · Jamie Dolan and Rhoda Vergalito were paid a combined salary of $126. An emergency trusteeship hearing was held. Which found that there were a number of the unnecessary or overpaid positions or positions of power within the Unions and that many of them were held by persons related to or associated with a Mr. The IHO concluded that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Knight LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Sinclair</SPAN> were on brief. The package was returned unclaimed. The package was signed for by someone other than Twomey.</P> <P> Twomey did not contact Delta for nine years. The package was returned to Delta marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3664_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Kathleen Semien is a 54 year old woman who began working for BP Amoco in February 1989 as an environmental remediation manager. She was employed as a chemical engineer. Administrative Named Fiduciaries were granted the authority to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2495_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have invoked § 510 against their employers. They allege that AXA intentionally 2 No. 05 2495 deprived them of benefits by changing the way that insurance salesmen are defined as full time employees of the company. We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs' claim is timebarred. There is little dispute concerning the basic facts. AXA Network LLC and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States to whom we refer collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us for the second time.1 Appellant. That are governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3259_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For reasons that are unclear. His insurance was not activated promptly. Have raised a variety of state law claims that turn on the fact that McDonald did not receive the promised insurance coverage in time. We conclude that although the district court was correct about ERISA preemption. The dismissal was premature. Thus the McDonalds are entitled to go forward and litigate their claim under ERISA. He received an employment confirmation letter from Household stating
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1867_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which will be paid from the trust and. To the extent that fund is insufficient. (What the PBGC can pay is limited by 29 U.S.C. §1322(b)(3). So vested benefits of well paid retirees such as airline pilots are not fully insured.). Because the funds in trust for the pilots' plan at United were insufficient to pay the promised benefits. The PBGC was unwilling to underwrite the extra benefits that would become vested during the first six months of 2005. That exceeded what could be offered through a tax qualified pension plan which is to say. A plan the benefits of which are taxed to employees as they are paid after retirement. Rather than when the work is performed and wages earned. May or may not be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966072.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Collins was an ACIPCO employee and a participant in the Plan. Which is self funded and administered by ACIPCO. After Collins was seriously injured on the job in 1987. A. The relevant Plan provision is as follows: R2 17. In the event that a Participant who is receiving a pension hereunder is or becomes eligible for a disability benefit under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-7095a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Speights was on the brief. Because we hold that restitution was an available remedy for the company under ERISA and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the award. The job was stressful. Which was succeeded as the company responsible for administering the plan by Fortis in 1991. A person is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Denied they were personally liable for these corporate debts. Background Defendant Appellee Green & Freedman Baking Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042213np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked here to review Appellee American Telephone and Telegraph Company. That period was 1987 1992). The pensions were not very portable. Unlike other types of plans it was difficult for an employee to know what their pension was worth at any given 3 time. The plan was also costly to administer and encouraged early retirements. This plan is less costly to administer and virtually eliminates early retirement subsidies. These employees were unlikely to work long enough to accumulate an amount in their cash balance account equal to what they would have received under the traditional plan. Continued service for AT&T would have no impact on an employee's retirement under the traditional plan. Employees could retire at the same pension benefits in 1997 when Special Update was offered as they could for the next several years. If they were going to retire within the next 47 years. The Appellant Retirees are all former AT&T employees who chose to accept Special Update for their retirement pensions. Their benefits were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0800n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued that as the named beneficiary at the time of the insured's death he was entitled to the entire proceeds of the life insurance policy. Sitting by designation. * and that they were entitled to equal shares of the policy proceeds. Ruling that the daughters are entitled to the proceeds of the policy. Because it is wellestablished in this circuit that we must determine the insured's intent by looking to the designated beneficiary in the plan documents at the time of the insured's death. Patricia Hardy Craig was covered by a contract for Group Term Life Insurance issued by Unicare pursuant to a contractual arrangement with her employer Ernst & Young Product Sales LLC (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/993570.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are individually named plaintiffs in a suit seeking to require Freedom Forge to continue funding the health benefits plan currently in place for retirees and spouses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' claim is that Freedom Forge induced them into early retirement with oral assurances that their health insurance benefits would continue essentially unmodified until death. This suit was prompted by Freedom Forge's announcement that it would be switching from a self insured benefits program with no premiums to a managed care system in which retirees would be able to choose among plans. Asserting that they were reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. Faced with a large group of plaintiffs whom the court determines are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. May grant a preliminary injunction to the entire group of plaintiffs if there is evidence that some. Of the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. While none of the other plaintiffs presented evidence that they were threatened with irreparable harm or were similarly situated to those who testified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2386.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <U>Wolfe Associates</U> was on brief. LLP</U> was on brief. The parties have stipulated that Borden. Borden contends that the plaintiffs are only due reinstatement in the Plan. Reimbursement for expenses incurred that would have been covered by the Plan. Plaintiffs assert that this remedy is inadequate and that they are entitled to additional equitable relief. Even though the estate was no longer legally obliged to pay those costs. We deny the plaintiffs' appeal and rule for Borden on the cross appeal.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2318.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on briefs for appellants. Gants and Palmer & Dodge were on brief for appellee. The plan was subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0352p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. US Airways is a large commercial airline. The pilots are all former employees of US Airways and are participants in the Retirement Plan. The Retirement Plan is part of a broader collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and the Pilots' representative labor group. This lump sum was an alternative to the normal method of payment of retirement benefits. The Plan states that it will pay a participant's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7375D50432EDD2C88256E28008268C4/$file/0217094.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That method counts the period of time the employee is employed. They allege that even if the regulation is lawful. Because the elapsed time regulation is valid. Gore announced that it was closing its Phoenix plant. That the upcoming loss of employment was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2058_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Phencorp was a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip Services Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034891np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Appellants are retirees of Chapter 11 debtor J & L Structural. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants contend that they are entitled to recover their fees and costs under § 502(a)(3)(B). Or declaration) to compel the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff are suits for `money damages. The plaintiff's claim was considered legal because he sought
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTkzNTMtY3Zfc28ucGRm/03-9353-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962693.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The SSA determined that the date of the onset of disability was August 14. Norman was also involved in a mining accident in 1980. Continued to work after that time. 2 A subphrenic abscess is an abscess occurring beneath the diaphragm. 4 J.E. Norman was totally disabled because he received Disability Insurance benefits for two periods of disability (August 14. Norman's primary diagnosis in the first period was the subphrenic abscess which did not result from a mining accident. Norman submitted to the Trustees additional evidence indicating that the disability was due to problems with his back and the subphrenic abscess. The district court held that the denial of benefits was an abuse of discretion. This appeal ensued. 3 An award of Disability Insurance is a prerequisite for application to the United Mine Workers Pension Plan. 3 Standard of Review This court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment by the district court. District courts reviewed pension plan eligibility decisions of trustees for support by substantial evidence and to determine that the decisions were not arbitrary and capricious.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0402p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual background Gettings was hired by the Fund as a secretary/clerk in 1978. Five other people were employed in the Fund's office: three clerks. Gettings and the three other clerks were members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU). Compensation for the field auditor and the fund administrator was set by the Fund's Board of Trustees. Gettings claims that Mickshaw was incompetent and unqualified for this position. Because Mickshaw was purportedly unable to fulfill his duties as the field auditor. Gettings complains that she and Mickshaw were doing the same kind of work. That Mickshaw was being paid $35. 000 more per year than she was by virtue of his formally holding the position of field auditor. Alleging that the Fund was discriminating against her because of her gender. The OPEIU union steward were subsequently taken by an assistant state attorney general on behalf of the OCRC. Gettings admitted that there were significant differences between the duties of a field auditor and the duties of a clerk.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0074p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gore appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in which all claims were dismissed in favor of the employer/ERISA plan administrator El Paso Energy Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2277.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</span> were on brief for appellees.</span></span></p> <p style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-3174.htm">00-3174 -- MYERS V. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. -- 01/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
On her claim she was terminated on account of her age and sex in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. That is. Or performance in deciding whether any particular job was needed or could be incorporated into another position. Dietz rejected permitting more senior employees whose positions were vaporized or integrated into an existing job from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042267np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts of this case. Our summary of the facts will be brief. Johnson was employed in the coal mining industry from October 1978 to June 1992. Johnson stopped working for BethEnergy and was unilaterally placed on Pennsylvania workers' compensation benefits by BethEnergy effective June 22. Were more credible than those of Dr. Judge Kenny held that Johnson was entitled to compensation
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a1012n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Applied and was declared ineligible for a disability pension under Emerson's ERISA governed retirement plan (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-7063a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-4221.htm">98-4221 -- AMERIKS V. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK -- 04/20/2000<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2283.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wishart and Jackman & Roth were on brief for appellant. Schnitzler & Krupman were on brief for appellee. Although Barbour was performing his job satisfactorily. An employee who is still disabled must then apply for long term disability benefits. Which are provided through a funded insurance program. A Physician's Certification of Disability form (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972462.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: Nancy Gardner appeals the district court's dismissal of her statelaw claims against appellees on the ground that her claims were preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4005_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ESOPs are subject to ERISA. This is a suit under ERISA. The principal defendant is State Street Bank & Trust. All appointed by the unions that represent United's employees is the only fiduciary named in the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1). Except that it is understood that the Plan is designed to invest exclusively in Company Stock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032569P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her case was removed to the district court1 on the ground that her claims were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013751u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Winters was married to the late Ron Patel until early 1999. During their marriage Patel was an editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Was a participant in a 401(k) plan sponsored by Knight Ridder. While the two were married. Winters was the beneficiary of Patel's 401(k) account. Patel told Winters that he was having an affair with Mary Frangipanni and that he wanted a divorce. Winters was represented throughout the invasion of privacy litigation by the firm of Sprague & Sprague. Winters was represented by Gary Borger in these proceedings. In relevant part: It is further agreed and ordered as follows: 1. Winters under this stipulation of settlement are paid in full. (1)$100. Winters is paid in full. 3. Ronald Patel hereby waives any claim which he may have to seek consolidation of the Pennsylvania litigation with this matter or to assert the defense of the New Jersey Entire Controversy Doctrine in this action. Over thirteen months after the Consent Decree was entered. All claim set forth or which could have been set forth arising from or with respect to ...
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1924_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The funds were intended for payment of health insurance premiums. Whiting was sentenced to 90 months of incarceration. (2) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Whiting's convictions for conversion. Badger's employees were members of the United Electrical. Badger employees were covered by a United Healthcare insurance policy that was funded in part by employee payroll deductions. Employee contributions were withheld from paychecks and kept in Badger's general operating account until they were used to pay the United Healthcare premium. The company was in financial distress and behind in payments to vendors. Although these funds were deducted. MBA was not an insurance company. Have MBA enroll employees in the plan in groups of one or two. Badger first gave official notice to the employees that the plan was self funded. Although the self funded plan was effective July 1. Due to processing delays medical claims were not presented to Badger for approval until late September 2001. Badger employees were left with $414.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022547u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Inasmuch as we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts of the case. In order to discuss and decide which pension options were best suited for Mr. That if the AUTOMATIC 50% SPOUSE (ERISA) option was chosen. She also told the Cagnas that they could take the Form home with them if they were not ready to make an election. `What do you think?'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/022668p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Celeslie Epps Malloy is a former employee of defendant Merck & Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0912n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Belluardo and Middleton contend that they are participants in Cox Enterprises' pension plan and are entitled to benefits under the plan. They claim they are entitled to amounts that Dayton Newspapers should have paid the federal and state governments on their behalf as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Belluardo and Middleton were newspaper carriers for Dayton Newspapers. That Dayton Newspapers had misclassified them as independent contractors when they were actually common law employees. The defendants are Dayton Newspapers. Holding that the plaintiffs were independent contractors because they had the right to control the means of selling the papers. Observing that although it agreed that plaintiffs were independent contractors. The real issue before it was whether the plaintiffs were permitted to buy and sell the newspapers. So there was no misrepresentation by Dayton Newspapers. While their state suit was pending. Pension Plan contending that they were covered employees entitled to benefits under the pension plan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/022668p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Celeslie Epps Malloy is a former employee of defendant Merck & Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983229P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction because the Jenisios' claims were subject to the RLA's mandatory arbitration provision. I. Steven Jenisio was hired by Ozark Airlines. (Ozark) in December 1971 and was continuously employed by Ozark until it merged with Trans World Airlines. Was governed by the Ozark IAM collective bargaining agreement (Ozark IAM CBA). The Ozark Plan was terminated. Jenisio was completely vested in the Ozark Plan. The labor relationship between TWA and IAM was governed by the TWA IAM collective bargaining agreement (TWA IAM CBA). Is a beneficiary under both the Ozark Plan and the TWA Plan. He was awarded benefits under the TWA Plan. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 application was denied. Arguing that the claims were subject to mandatory binding arbitration under the RLA.3 The district court agreed. Concluding that the RLA divested it of subject matter jurisdiction over the Jenisios' complaint because each of their claims was subject to the RLA's mandatory arbitration provision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because no one disputes the potential for serious irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction and because we agree that the retirees have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. Plaintiffs are a class of former employees of the Centralia plant who retired from the plant after August 1. For: (i) a retired employee (including any eligible dependents) provided such retired employee is eligible for benefits under Article II of the Company's Hourly Rate Employees Pension Plan. ... Insurance Programs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1402.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nevins was on brief for appellant. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for appellees. Because Speen failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that he was a Crown employee for the purposes of his federal and state statutory claims. The first was that Speen was not a Crown employee. Rather an independent contractor who enjoyed no protection under the applicable statutory provisions.2 The second was that Speen had not produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that he was maliciously discharged because of his age in violation of Massachusetts common law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-7140a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2006\05 7140 Stewart7a.odl.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Morgan appeals the district court's decision that he is not entitled to receive pension benefits from the Contractors. We reverse because serious procedural irregularities led to breach of the Trustees' fiduciary duties and Morgan is entitled to benefits under the terms of the Plan. Morgan was a principal. He also acted as an employee by operating and performing mechanical work on equipment that was within the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between the International Union of Operating Engineers and M & S. As follows: The term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ahearn was a participant in three separate retirement plans: the U.S. Only the SERP is at issue here. That the benefits he was (and is) entitled to receive were improperly computed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A. SERP Social Security Offset The SERP is a so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The matter is before this court on the plaintiffs' cross appeal from an order entered August 17. Sidney Levy and William Deck were 4 product engineers in T&B's Electrical Division in Bridgewater who refused to relocate to Memphis. It acknowledges that the memorandum was circulated widely among the employees. T&B's severance policy provided for benefits to employees who were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Linds believe that their tort and contract claims are not pre empted by ERISA. Actions by Aetna that Appellants claim are outside the scope of that plan. The private action provisions of ERISA have been narrowly construed. We find that the Linds have viable claims neither inside ERISA nor outside it. Was covered by Aetna under his wife's health insurance plan. He was diagnosed with Multiple
Sclerosis (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the Secretary of Labor does not have the authority. We will grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. Williams was 62 years of age at the time of the settlement. It was decided that Williams would take an early retirement. The policy would have paid the required amount per month. Remarking that
|
|
BROADDUS V. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (7/10/1998, NO. 96-3262)
Senior Circuit Judge: The defendant Florida Power Corporation (FPC) appeals from a final judgment and damages award in favor of plaintiff Harry Stanley Broaddus on his claim that his employment with FPC was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Background Broaddus was employed by FPC in various positions at its Crystal River nuclear power plant for eleven years prior to his termination as part of a department wide reduction in force (RIF) on December 9. Broaddus filed suit against FPC alleging that he was terminated because of his age in violation of the ADEA and in retaliation for claims he made to company provided medical benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. et. seq. Both issues were tried to a jury in the Middle District of Florida. Prior to trial FPC moved to strike Broaddus's demand for a jury trial on his ERISA claim because ERISA allows only equitable relief and no right to a jury trial exists.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under 404 is synonymous with a claim for benefits under a plan. They claim the District Court erred when it found that their claim under 404 was a claim for benefits. We find the District Court correctly found that the plaintiffs' lawsuit is a claim for benefits and will affirm its order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim that the plan fiduciaries knew that defendant AT&T was providing the plan with inaccurate data about the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Although the notice of appeal was filed on behalf of both Briand and Merino. No arguments have been presented on behalf of Merino. Any challenge Merino may have had to the judgment has been waived. The judgment is affirmed. BACKGROUND 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to August The BIW Fund was an ERISA covered employee benefit plan established pursuant to a trust agreement among the International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Locals 119 and 835 (collectively the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the district court's opinion. Which was issued after an eleven day bench trial. CommutAir is a corporation based in Plattsburgh. It was founded in 1989 by John Arthur Sullivan. Which was thriving financially. These figures were not derived from a formal valuation of the company. It was the sellers' belief. Trust would require an independent appraisal of CommutAir if it were hired to represent the ESOP and that this process would entail significant investigation of the company. This meeting was attended by representatives of CommutAir. KMC's primary 4 responsibilities were to conduct a due diligence review of CommutAir and to assist in negotiating revisions in the terms of the securities to be purchased by the ESOP. HLHZ's primary responsibility was to evaluate the financial terms of the transaction. To render a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is denied. The focus of those opinions particularly Mertens and Great West is that any make whole monetary relief that is not directly traceable to some wrongly held property is properly characterized as legal. Is thus unavailable in a 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) action. Eichorn's request for an adjustment of pension records that would create a payment obligation is clearly unavailable. A
|
|
00-5148 -- LLOYD V. GENERAL MOTORS HOURLY RATE EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN -- 01/04/2001
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appellant Lawrence A. We have reviewed the record with particular attention to the transcript of the summary judgment hearing. Explaining that the law and the facts were against him. We are impressed with the patience and care with which the court approached this case. As to Mr. We have held that exhaustion of administrative (i.e. Company or plan provided) remedies is an implicit prerequisite to seeking judicial relief.
|
|
BROADDUS V. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (7/10/1998, NO. 96-3262)
Senior Circuit Judge: The defendant Florida Power Corporation (FPC) appeals from a final judgment and damages award in favor of plaintiff Harry Stanley Broaddus on his claim that his employment with FPC was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Background Broaddus was employed by FPC in various positions at its Crystal River nuclear power plant for eleven years prior to his termination as part of a department wide reduction in force (RIF) on December 9. Broaddus filed suit against FPC alleging that he was terminated because of his age in violation of the ADEA and in retaliation for claims he made to company provided medical benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. et. seq. Both issues were tried to a jury in the Middle District of Florida. Prior to trial FPC moved to strike Broaddus's demand for a jury trial on his ERISA claim because ERISA allows only equitable relief and no right to a jury trial exists.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Burpee & DeMoura was on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. Circuit Judge. sued The Gillette Company Long Term Disability Plan (Plan or LTD Plan) for benefits she asserts were wrongfully denied her. Bent on terminating appellant's at will employment at year's end as part of a reduction in force. Releasing any and all federal and state claims she might have against Gillette. Is likely subject to interpretation in accordance with tenets of 4 federal common law.1 See Pilot Life Ins. In construing the terms of contracts that are governed by federal common law. We are guided by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: Claudia Lown argues that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case because her long term disability plan was a church plan not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Lown further argues that if jurisdiction is proper. The district court erred in finding that she was not totally disabled under the plan. Because Lown did not prove that she was totally disabled. This hospital is located in Columbia. Baptist Healthcare was affiliated with the South Carolina Baptist Convention. After 1993 no Baptist Healthcare board member was a member of or held any office with the South Carolina Baptist Convention. 000 employees were affiliated with a number of different faiths. Participants in the disability plan were specifically advised that the plan was subject to ERISA. Certain Baptist Healthcare employees were also eligible for a retirement plan. This retirement plan was established and maintained by the Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. The retirement plan was constructed as a church plan in order to qualify for exemption from ERISA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants/Plaintiffs are physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That exhaustion is not required for claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The Program's benefits include coverage for treatment of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to review two or ders granting partial summary judgment to the defendant in this ERISA action. If found to have made material misrepresentations to the plaintiffs. I. The factual and procedural history of this case is extensive and has been recounted elsewher e in detail.1 We 1. 58 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995). 3 will explain only the status of the case as it comes to us on this appeal. This is a class action filed on behalf of retirees and disabled former employees of the Sperry. These lawsuits were eventually consolidated. Most of whom were former Sperry and Burroughs employees. The first was that. This was intended to convey not only that the existing plan provided such benefits for life but also that those benefits were vested. The second theory
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument on appeal. The appeal in each case is from an order of the bankruptcy court filed September 24. This matter was originally submitted after oral argument on February 8. The findings have been made and the matter was reargued on March 2. STANDARD OF REVIEW The findings of fact are uncontested and no review thereof is sought by the parties. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. A bankruptcy court's denial of a claim of exemption is a final. The attorney for the debtor is holding the refunds pending a final judgment. Which were estimated in the total amount of $2. The attorneys for the debtors are holding the original refunds pending a final judgment. The debtors filed an amended Schedule C claiming that all of the 2003 tax refunds are exempt pursuant to Missouri statutes. That a debtor's anticipated tax refund is not exempt. The court therefore sustained the Trustee's objection to exemptions and ordered turnover to the Trustee. 3 DISCUSSION Each of the debtors claimed that the federal and state tax refunds were exempt under Missouri law.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether an employee benefit plan participant is required. To exhaust an administrative claims procedure that was adopted by his plan only after he had already brought an ERISA action to recover benefits. The district court held that the exhaustion of such remedies was a prerequisite to seeking relief in court. We hold that the exhaustion of such remedies is excused under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 1(l). A socalled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The indictment alleged that he was punishable as a principal pursuant to § 2. As well as the ERISA reporting violations that are the subject of this appeal. Plaskett was the co owner of Industrial Environmental Management (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Howard was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a double mastectomy. Temporary expanders were placed in her chest as part of her reconstructive surgery. The expanders were replaced with saline implants. The saline implants were removed and tissue expanders were again inserted. The health insurance plan is provided through Howard's employer. Which is only available through selected doctors. None of whom are members of Coventry's system. This suit was brought originally as a class action. Howard's name. 22 1 Coventry to have the implants placed in her chest in St. Howard later learned these implants were available in St. Which is closer to her home. A court will accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. The motion will be denied
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
First National Bank of Omaha (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Meehan United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge: Appellant Virginia Ann Meehan is a Chapter 7 debtor. The contested property is debtor's individual retirement account (IRA). Which debtor claims is excluded from property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that she was wrongfully denied ERISA benefits. Was terminated for the purpose of interfering with her attainment of ERISA rights. Was entitled to a civil penalty because the administrator of her employer's plan did not provide requested plan documents within the time specified by statute. (3) Romero was not entitled to a civil penalty from defendant Serocca. This date preserved Romero's eligibility for all the benefits that she would have received by leaving in December. Explaining to Human Resources employee Betzaida Boynton: My spouse doesn't want to have to see that man's face after everything he has done to me. . . . I don't want anyone to think that it is me. I sure would shed no tear and I will be happy. My hands are clean. My hands are. Boynton was noticeably unsettled and shaken by the incidents. 3 Boynton reported the matter to SmithKline's security department. Her action was stayed pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
|
|
LASCHE V. GEORGE W. LASCHE PROFIT SHARING PLAN
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lasche v. We will decide whether a spouse legally waived her rights to her deceased spouse's retirement plan. Because the waiver language was too general to be effective. Because the district court was correct in concluding that the waiver failed to comply with the requirements of ERISA. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> George Lasche and appellee Madeline Baker Lasche were married in August of 1985. This plan was reformed several times mainly because George transferred his retirement funds to different financial institutions. Madeline was required to sign part four of the Form. My consent means that I give up rights I may have under the Plan and applicable law (other than rights I may later have as the survivor in a joint annuity with the participant) to receive those amounts payable under the Plan by reason of the participant's death to which I would otherwise be entitled if I were the Participant sole beneficiary.<p> <p> R2 49 Exhibit E Part 4.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-11241.man.html">HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-4106.htm">98-4106 -- KIMBER V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Plan is managed and self funded by Thiokol and is subject to the requirements of ERISA. John Hancock Managed Care Group (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510850.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are unpersuaded by appellants' claim that the district court abused its discretion when it denied their motions to compel discovery. I The essential and undisputed facts in this case are these: Otis Holloman worked for Curtis 1000. Who was Katherine Holloman. The plan trustee would have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/024063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 1 that would have been incurred by the plaintiff in exercising her life insurance conversion rights. When Brown was unable to return to work at the end of this period she was terminated. Brown's termination letter was sent on November 15. It informed her that the effective date of her termination was October 29. This is significant because Brown has health problems making it difficult to get insurance from a new provider. This process of conversion and the deadlines involved are explained in a Summary Plan Description (SPD). While she was on leave. This application and the subsequent appeal were denied. Is not a party to this action. Brown was awarded $8030. Aventis was additionally required to provide Brown with a life insurance certificate for $39. 000the amount of coverage Brown was unable to convertminus any costs Brown would have incurred in the process of conversion. Aventis argues that it was an abuse of discretion to 3 award Brown the maximum damages allowed because (1) there was no evidence of bad faith and (2) Brown suffered no harm as a result of receiving her COBRA notification late because Aventis provided her health benefits retroactively.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0516n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. OCP is a building contractor located in northeast Ohio that performs work in Ohio and Michigan. OCP is a party to a CBA with Toledo Union Local 886 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4097.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The group insurance was sponsored by her employer. Thus review is de novo. All well pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The only issue is whether ERISA's limitation of remedies to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0184n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Central was not required to disclose in the summary plan description that it retained the right to modify the Plan. (2) even if Union Central was required to make such a disclosure. Failure to do so was only a procedural violation. Factual Background Plaintiffs bring a class action suit on behalf of 130 former employees who were [a]ll active. 2003 who were terminated without cause due to the elimination of their Union Central positions and who were not paid severance benefits under Union Central Severance Plan Number 510. Plaintiffs were participants in Union Central's Severance Plan Number 510 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1763.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for defendants Nancy Mayer and Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island and Joann Flaminio in her capacity as Executive Director. McIntyre & Tate were on brief for plaintiffs National Education Association Rhode Island. Gursky with whom Gursky Law Associates was on brief for plaintiff Richard R. The retirement system is administered by the Retirement Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41531.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the alleged ERISA plan did not exist and that the class members had received all severance benefits to which they were entitled under a different ERISA plan. 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. This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Other similarly situated individuals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4277.opa.html">LASCHE V. GEORGE W. LASCHE PROFIT SHARING PLAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lasche v. We will decide whether a spouse legally waived her rights to her deceased spouse's retirement plan. Because the waiver language was too general to be effective. Because the district court was correct in concluding that the waiver failed to comply with the requirements of ERISA. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> George Lasche and appellee Madeline Baker Lasche were married in August of 1985. This plan was reformed several times mainly because George transferred his retirement funds to different financial institutions. Madeline was required to sign part four of the Form. My consent means that I give up rights I may have under the Plan and applicable law (other than rights I may later have as the survivor in a joint annuity with the participant) to receive those amounts payable under the Plan by reason of the participant's death to which I would otherwise be entitled if I were the Participant sole beneficiary.<p> <p> R2 49 Exhibit E Part 4.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983638P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury found that Langlie was not discharged on account of his age. Arguing there was overwhelming evidence of age discrimination and retaliation for his years of informal The HONORABLE JAMES M. He also argues there were prejudicial evidentiary and jury instruction errors by the district court. Langlie argues the district court erred in denying his post trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial because the jury verdict is contrary to the great weight of evidence showing that age was a motivating factor in Onan's decision to eliminate Langlie's position. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and affirm unless that evidence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The district court held that Metropolitan's determination of the disability claim was procedurally proper and supported by substantial evidence. Forrester's procedural objection to the determination of her claim is undercut by this court's recent decision in Metzger v. She argues that Metropolitan was required. She contends that before Metropolitan decided her administrative appeal she should have been provided. Substantial compliance with ERISA full and fair review requirements is sufficient. Forrester once a month for depression described her condition in a manner consistent with other evidence in the record (and the decisions denying her disability claim) indicating that her mood disorder was not the primary issue impacting her return to work and that she had essentially normal mental functioning. It is evident that their disclosure would not have altered the administrative disposition under review and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1253.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Burton Chandler with whom Seder & Chandler was on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. The gravamen was Fallon's refusal to provide coverage for a treatment regime proposed by Charlotte Turner and her doctor to address her metastasized breast cancer. After the case was removed to federal district court. The pertinent facts are largely undisputed. Charlotte Turner was diagnosed with breast cancer. The disease was at first treated by surgery. Was beyond control by conventional therapies. Ronald Turner was employed by General Motors. Charlotte Turner was covered by the health coverage that Fallon provided for family members of General Motors employees. Fallon is a health maintenance organization that provides or reimburses health care for its members.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1888.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
03 1954 and that was more favorable to him than the contested judgment. Are not in dispute. Lowe's wife was a retired employee of a company that was acquired by McGraw Hill. The company's retirement plan was merged into the McGraw Hill plan. The waiver that the plan had was signed by Mr. His signature was neither witnessed nor notarized. On his copy there was no check mark in the single life annuity box. As there was on the plan's copy. There was no response. It was not until March of 2003 that the judgment that the plan has appealed was entered. That determination is left to the discretion of the district judge. The plan's delay in giving Lowe documents to which he was clearly entitled was egregious. 03 1954 McGraw Hill plan is a substantial entity that cannot claim to lack the resources necessary for processing document requests expeditiously. The question is not presented be a mitigating circumstance. Lowe were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-8347.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Meehan United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge: Appellant Virginia Ann Meehan is a Chapter 7 debtor. The contested property is debtor's individual retirement account (IRA). Which debtor claims is excluded from property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The pertinent facts are undisputed. The supervisor told Marolt she believed Marolt was entitled to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Thomas Wenner was the Chief Operating Officer of Orchid Manufacturing Group (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. was on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the case is moot. We alternatively affirm the district court's judgment that Maher's and Gravee's claims are barred by res judicata. The trust was amended to create a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Judy and John Hill were married in 1970 in Missouri. John acknowledged in his deposition taken in this case that he was dealing with a drug problem when the couple separated. Which in turn was causing financial difficulties for the couple. John was unrepresented by counsel during the dissolution proceedings and did not appear or contest the divorce. The dissolution was granted as to him by default. Judy was diagnosed with breast cancer. She still was employed by AT&T at the time of her death. Both John Hill and Sharron Long claimed they were entitled to all the funds in Judy's employee savings plan. Long's competing claim apparently was based on the Hills' divorce decree and the fact that Hill was not Judy's spouse at the time of her death. By the time Hill was notified of the decision in September 1992. The letter was returned to the company. A copy of the June letter was sent to him via ordinary mail. 2 1 AT&T had disbursed the funds. Holding that they were preempted by ERISA. The issue of whether and how a divorce decree may divest a person of beneficiary rights is not explicitly considered in ERISA and thus is a question of federal common law.4 See Mohamed v.
|
|
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment was erroneous because Ceridian provided vested disability benefits and did not unambiguously reserve the right to retroactively change the level of disability benefits that employees would receive in the future. 1 who were disabled before January 1. Dental insurance in which they were enrolled at the time they became disabled. Ceridian is the successor in interest to Control Data Corporation. We will refer to the appellee as Ceridian. The class specifically excluded those individuals who were members of the class in Chiles v. An opinion regarding this class action is recorded at 95 F.3d 1505 (10th Cir. 1996). 22 1 Appellants brought this action alleging that Ceridian's refusal to continue paying their insurance premiums violates ERISA. Disabled employees were eligible for long term disability status beginning after their fifth consecutive month of disability. Employees who qualified under this plan were entitled to up to 60% of their predisability salary.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hence in addition to being covered by Pillsbury's standard pension plan (which is not at issue in this case) he was covered by Pillsbury's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Warren discovered that in order to have received $243. 000 in retirement benefits under the plan he would have had to remain employed 2 with Blue Cross until the age of 55. We agreed that the action was appropriate for interlocutory appeal. The single question presented is: Does § 502(a). Removal jurisdiction exists only if the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a) (1994). Has fashioned the following exception to the well pleaded complaint rule:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Employees were allowed to take up to ten sick days per year to care for a family member's illness. Sick days taken were paid at full pay. Unused days were not payable at termination. Were payable at termination. PTO days taken are paid at full salary. Unused days are payable at termination. STD days are paid at either sixty five percent or full pay. The first five days of STD leave are unpaid. Unused vacation days were converted to PTO days. Wells Fargo claimed that the employees' state breach of contract claim was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Myers argues that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Ordinance) is invalid under the dormant Com7479 merce Clause. Myers also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that Myers lacked standing to argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. (ii) a contractor's operations on real property outside of San Francisco owned by the City or which the City has a right to occupy if the contractor's presence at that location is connected to a contract or property contract with the City. [and] (iii) where the work is being performed by a contractor for the City within the United States. If a contractor is found to have breached these nondiscrimination requirements. The City notified Myers that the company was the low bidder on the contract.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a health The HONORABLE WILLIAM BREVARD HAND. The result is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. Plaintiffs are a purported class of MedCenters Plan members who sued MedCenters. Are Defendants ERISA Fiduciaries? Plaintiffs must prove that MedCenters and Aetna are ERISA fiduciaries. Any person is an ERISA plan fiduciary to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets . . . or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan. 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A). Presumptively the employer is the Plan sponsor. MedCenters is given a great deal of discretionary authority to manage and administer the Plans. We assume that MedCenters is an ERISA fiduciary when exercising such discretion. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 3 1 The district court concluded that Aetna was not an ERISA fiduciary when asserting.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
One for breach of contract and one for violating the Illinois (continued...) 2 No. 05 3476 mined that Caremark was not an ERISA fiduciary and therefore granted Caremark's motion to dismiss. One of the benefits provided is prescription drug coverage which entitles the union members to obtain brand name or generic prescription drugs for a small copayment. One of the nation's largest Pharmaceutical Benefit Management (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Myers argues that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Ordinance) is invalid under the dormant Com7479 merce Clause. Myers also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that Myers lacked standing to argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. (ii) a contractor's operations on real property outside of San Francisco owned by the City or which the City has a right to occupy if the contractor's presence at that location is connected to a contract or property contract with the City. [and] (iii) where the work is being performed by a contractor for the City within the United States. If a contractor is found to have breached these nondiscrimination requirements. The City notified Myers that the company was the low bidder on the contract.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question in this ERISA case arising from a company's deferred compensation plan is whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant company by holding that the plaintiff. Was a participant in a
|
|
03-5144 -- CUNNINGHAM V. ADAMS -- 08/10/2004
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Edward A. For seeking a history and/or accounting of the Plan. The district court determined that since the Plan was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When her disability benefits were terminated. The Plan is an employer sponsored disability plan within the meaning of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002. Schneider notified Sentry that she was disabled under the terms of the Plan. The Healthy Return Plan is not implicated in this action. Schneider was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) states that summary judgment may be granted only if the record shows
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Abdel was employed by U.S. Hartford Comprehensive Employee Benefit Service Company (
|
|
99-4114 -- WINKEL V. KENNECOTT HOLDINGS CORP. -- 01/10/2001
Although individuals chosen by Kennecott to participate in the Severance Plan were terminated. Winkel attempted to return to his job in an effort to have the opportunity to be chosen as a participant in the Severance Plan. Refused to allow Winkel to return to his job and turned down his written request to be included as a participant in the Severance Plan. Winkel brought this suit alleging Defendants breached a fiduciary duty owed to him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. It asserted that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ellis had sought review in district court of MetLife's final determination that she was ineligible for long term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). I. Ellis was a branch manager for NationsBank Corporation whose principal duties related to originating mortgage loans. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. It is funded by MetLife. Unless it can be shown that the determination was arbitrary and capricious. That a participant is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs have timely appealed. They apply in situations where the employee contributions are made through payroll deductions. Several former employees have elected to continue coverage under ERISA. The checks arrive at the company at various times of the month and are deposited into the employer's general bank account. We cannot accept the plaintiffs' contention that the contributions are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Cates and Cates Construction were in contempt of an injunction that the court had previously entered and that Mr. Was liable for payments owed by K.T.E. to the plaintiffs. Cates's arguments on appeal are unconvincing and/or waived due to failure to raise the argument below. I A The facts leading to the present dispute are less complex than the litigation that resulted. Plaintiffs are several employee welfare benefit and pension plans that dispense benefits to unionized workers. K.T.E. is a Tennessee Corporation that specializes The Honorable Peter H. Its primary employees are a married couple: Donna Kelley. K.T.E. was one of the employers that contributed to the relevant funds. Which is owned and operated by Mr. Is a Kentucky corporation that performs general contractor work. It was awarded the contract to construct dormitories at Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina. KTE is responsible for submittals and submit [sic] them in a timely fashion.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court ruled that appellant's suit was barred by the statute of limitations because his cause of action accrued on the date of his termination of employment rather than on the date that his claim for benefits was denied. Appellant was selected for transfer to Compensation Plan II. Transfer to Plan II is within the sole discretion of Federated and is an incentive plan reserved for its top performers. Only select employees are allowed to participate in the Bonus Plan as a reward for being a top performer. The Bonus Plan does not payout during active employment and no funds are deposited or transferred into individual accounts for plan participants. Credit in the Bonus Plan is earned when the employee has met certain goals and is not payable until retirement. Credit is forfeited upon termination for any other reason. United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 2 *** Appellant alleges the Bonus Plan is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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. Amat was a member of the Seafarers' International Union. The union is affiliated with the plan. Of which Amat was a participant. For a detailed explanation how he could collect his benefits or why he was not entitled to any benefits if the plan concluded that he was not. One was provided to him a few days later. Amat was also then reminded that the deferred pension program was not initiated until 1976. A participant had to have
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issues raised in these appeals are whether the district court erred in determining that: (1) the FDIC's takeover and sale of Meritor was not a reorganization for purposes of the plaintiffs' separation pay plan. (7) the FDIC was not liable for a statutory penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) as a result of its failure to respond in a timely manner to plaintiffs' request for plan documents. (8) the certification of three plaintiff classes was inappropriate. We will affirm the orders of the district court. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the FDIC is not liable for the statutory penalty prescribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). We will affirm the order of the district court pertaining to this issue. The FDIC was appointed as receiver for the insolvent bank. Eligible employees were entitled to severance pay based on their years of service and salary. Benefits were payable for involuntary termination due to
|
|
99-1008 -- TRUJILLO V. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE -- 02/08/2000
He was discharged from his employment and instructed by Amax to apply for retirement disability benefits under Amax's Henderson Mine Non Contributory Retirement Income Plan (the Plan). Trujillo sought. The Director of the Committee rejected Trujillo's argument that the Plan was responsible for any portion of his attorney fees: You assert that the Plan must assume a portion of the responsibility for attorneys' fees. Which were incurred in obtaining the settlement of [your] workers' compensation benefits. As you have acknowledged. The Plan is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. ERISA is a comprehensive statute and contains provisions that make it clear that ERISA preempts any state regulation which relates to an employee benefit plan. We believe that the Colorado state case law you rely upon as authority for your position does not govern the operation of the Plan because it is preempted by ERISA. The Plan administrator is required to discharge its duties with regard to the Plan in accordance with the terms of the Plan document.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Robert Lowen (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether ERISA plan fiduciaries are also fiduciaries within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). We conclude that they are. I Morrison Knudsen Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether ERISA plan fiduciaries are also fiduciaries within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). We conclude that they are. I Morrison Knudsen Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. The LTD Plan is an ERISA regulated employee welfare benefit plan established by Meridian.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PER CURIAM:* Stanley Gaudet and Audrey Gaudet (the Gaudets) brought this action under ERISA to obtain pension benefits they contend were wrongfully denied by the Sheet Metal Workers Local Unions and Councils Fund (LUCF) and the Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund (NPF). of LUCF The district court granted summary judgment in favor on the Gaudets' The failure to exhaust granted their summary June 6. 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. We review a district court's determination that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required for abuse of discretion. We have recognized an exception to the exhaustion requirement where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile or the reviewing committee is hostile or biased against the claimant. offered no evidence to the district court that The Gaudets pursuit of administrative remedies would have been futile or that the LUCF reviewing committee would be hostile to their claims or biased against them.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Finding that the Fund was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * This is an appeal from a district court order granting final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Because there are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Shaw was totally disabled at the time he stopped working for his employer. I. The relevant facts and procedural history are straightforward. Was employed as a purchasing manager in UTC's automotive division from 1977 until April 19. Connecticut General was the claims administrator for both plans. (The short term plan was self insured.). To work at any job for which you are qualified by training. The Group Long Term Disability Contract defines
|
|
ROBERT E. HARTLINE, ET AL V. SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND
Preminger argued the cause for appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that the plan administrator wrongfully denied benefits to which she was entitled. Because we conclude that the plan administrator could not be found to have abused its contractually conferred discretion in the circumstances of this case. The parties agree that the Plan is governed by ERISA and constitutes an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is about whether the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Later voluntarily dismissed that claim. 1 1 * was entitled. Central States' denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. His principal argument in this court is that the district court used the wrong standard in deciding the motion for judgment on the administrative record and should have reviewed the trustees' decision to deny benefits de novo rather than under the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1161(b). Which held that such an application threshold is an element of a claim rather than a jurisdictional bar. There is no principled reason we can see. We affirm the judgment of the district court.1 I Thomas was employed by Elmwood Cemetery from 1993 through January 16. Thomas had health insurance coverage provided by Elmwood while she was employed there. Although she was not formally notified of that coverage's termination until two months after Elmwood fired her. Which she believes were caused by her inability to obtain medical care after her termination. Portions of which remain outstanding or were paid using borrowed funds. The analysis for Elmwood and Miller is identical. The law is settled in this circuit that. Personal liability does not attach to a representative of her former employer unless that representative is the administrator of the ERISA/COBRA plan. It is likely that Miller was the administrator of whatever plan was at issue. Because he seems to have been responsible for awarding COBRA benefits to the one employee who received them.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the district court properly ordered arbitration and properly applied the doctrine of issue preclusion and will affirm. The Press was struggling for survival in the Pittsburgh daily newspaper market. Critical to labor negotiations at that time was the Press's desire to reduce the union membership workforce. Shall be paid to the Trust within thirty (30) days after an employee is separated. A defined contribution plan is to be established for the benefit of certain of the Company's employees who are represented by the Union. The following defined contribution plan is hereby established by the Company and the Union. The gravamen of the dispute in this case are the particulars governing the contributions to the Plan and Trust. As often is the case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He would be eligible for the pension he seeks1 and that Roberts' claim is properly analyzed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Brenda Combes was the insured person. Was surprised to discover that Brenda had changed the beneficiaries on these policies (or had tried to do so) from himself and the couple's daughter Ashley to Brenda's sister. The third policy was part of a benefit plan established under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Since their interests are aligned for present purposes). Seeking a declaration that she was the sole beneficiary of that policy as well and demanding payment of the proceeds. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina actions were later transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. The three cases were consolidated. All contested proceeds were deposited with the court. While we do not doubt that David and Ashley were sympathetic figures. We conclude that the oral agreement is not sufficient under the law of Illinois to override a written designation of a beneficiary on an insurance policy. We also conclude that the flaws David identifies in the ERISA change of beneficiary form were not enough to defeat its effectiveness.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Robert Hogan was employed by Raytheon and participated in its ERISA governed pension plan (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The material facts are not in dispute. Jacoway was appointed to serve as trustee in their case. Listed on the debtors' Schedule B were their ownership interests in two IRAs. Both debtors have the unfettered ability to withdraw funds from their accounts. Rousey established her IRA account in April of 1999. 3 4 Northrop Grumman is the debtors' former employer. 2 The IRA owned by Richard Rousey totaled $42. The trustee filed an objection to the exemption claims and argued that the Rouseys are not entitled to claim exemptions of the IRAs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) in the total amount of $44. The court also determined that payments under the plans were not on account of illness. Unless (i) such plan or contract was established by or under the auspices of an insider that employed the debtor at the time the debtor's rights under such plan or contract arose. (ii) such payment is on account of age or length of service. There are essentially three main requirements that a debtor must meet to properly claim as exempt payments from an investment plan/income stream: payments are exempt only if they (1) are received pursuant to a pension.
|
|
01-6365 -- WOODS V. DAVIS -- 10/23/2002
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Halliburton Company (Halliburton or the Company) on plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court held that plaintiffs' ERISA claims were barred by Oklahoma's two year statute of limitations applicable to employment discrimination actions. Who were all over fifty years of age at the time of the amended complaint.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court determined that the defendants were not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff was terminated. Defendant claims the termination was solely due to plaintiff's failure to provide information concerning his disability status and ability to return to work. Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which his wrist was broken and his spine was fractured. His memory was poor. United Parcel Service 3 airline pilot was impaired and raises no argument against defendant's conclusion that he should no longer be flying. Doctor Lawrence initially believed that plaintiff's major problem was fatigue. Lawrence sent an update of plaintiff's condition in which he indicated that plaintiff was improving both physically and mentally. Lawrence noted that he planned to see plaintiff in four weeks to evaluate whether he was ready to work and stated. I anticipate that he will be ready for a restricted return to work on a limited hour basis.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.L.L.C. was on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Debra Hawkins Dunn appeals the District Court's holding that she is not entitled to an additional 0.8 years of participation under the Extended Disability Benefits plan of her former employer. General Motors.1 Because General Motors' interpretation of the disability plan is not arbitrary and capricious. We also deny Hawkins Dunn's request for attorney's fees because the issue was not properly raised in the District Court. Hawkins Dunn also claimed she was entitled to additional service time under General Motors' pension plan. The District Court held that she is entitled to the additional pension credit and General Motors does not contest that decision on appeal. 1 No. 05 2124 Hawkins Dunn v. Neither was long enough to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Michelman and Michelman Law Offices were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND BACKGROUND STANDARD OF REVIEW AND BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing the grant of a Fed. We will accept the allegations of the complaint as true for purposes of our de novo review. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for which the relief sought can be granted. We will reverse the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs are disabled retirees who participated in an employee welfare benefit plan sponsored by defendant appellee Jefferson Smurfit Corporation and administered by defendant appellee Smurfit Pension and Insurance Services Company. Defendants made what plaintiffs claim was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Stating she had not presented evidence she was under regular physician care for a condition that impaired her ability to work. It ruled that Metzger was entitled to know what evidence UNUM relied upon. To have an opportunity to address the accuracy and reliability of that evidence. To have UNUM consider the evidence presented by both parties before reaching any decision. It ruled that the opinions of these professionals did constitute
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that it was an authorized agent of Goodyear Tire & Rubber (Goodyear). The district court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the case.2 Counts Three through Five were dismissed as state law claims which were preempted by ERISA. The insurers must then determine who is primarily and who is secondarily liable for the payment of that individual's health care benefits. 3 have resolved these conflicts by adopting part or all of the Model Regulations set forth by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). It is not necessary for us to address these other issues. 3 See Ohio Adm inistrative Code § 3901 1 56(G). No. 02 3645 law would apply in cases where coordination of benefits is required between two plans which are not subject to ERISA. Federal courts have fashioned federal common law to resolve these issues. Providing that plan which covers beneficiary as employee is primary and plan which covers beneficiary as dependent of employee is secondary). Where parents are both covered by separate ERISA plans).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Because this is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment. Where he remained until he was laid off at age 54 due to a general downsizing of the Terramite workforce in July 2001. Miller said he was under no medical restriction when he was transferred to the hydraulic cylinder department. Miller stated that his job was mostly at a desk making repair kits. For which he obtained treatment while he was employed with Terramite. Terramite's owners stated that the layoff decisions were based upon skill. Phillips' recommendations were based on his subjective opinion of each employee's skill level as there were no employee performance evaluations or documentation of employee skills recorded at that time. Testified in his deposition that Miller had been revered as the unofficial supervisor responsible for the cylinder department when the actual supervisor was on sick leave. Miller's skills and experience were limited. Miller was never recalled. Miller asserts that his layoff was motivated by his age and disability.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the relief sought against Siade's employer sponsored health care plan was not available The Honorable Audrey G. The plan was governed by ERISA. Siade was diagnosed with non Hodgkin's lymphoma and sought GHP's pre approval for an allogeneic stem cell transplant. GHP denied coverage on the basis the procedure was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. We affirm.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Krasnoo was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. On the day the joint chapter 11 petition was filed. We recite the facts as the jury reasonably could have found them. That the record on appeal is woefully incomplete. 383.66 were deposited in a bank account in the name of John Shepard. The fourth was the $8. Who was continuing to write checks on their joint checking account during this time. Were deposited in the Shepard account. 517.36 check was drawn on the Shadduck pension plan account. The Shadducks were indicted on January 19. Shadduck admitted making false statements but nevertheless insisted that he had not listed the pension plan funds on the schedules because they were exempt. Vouchsafed that his wife had not known what was going on. Who was sentenced to two years' probation. She nonetheless contends that there was insufficient evidence that she intentionally made a false statement. There was ample evidence to support the conviction. 000 withdrawal from the joint checking account on the eve of bank ruptcy was to prevent its disclosure to creditors.
|
|
TAMPA BAY INT'L TERMINALS V. TAMPA MARITIME ASSOC.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Tampa Bay Int'l Terminals v. That Appellee was an employer subject to withdrawal liability under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/942266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The group policy was an employee benefit plan governed by Young America's Manhattan Life cancelled the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Young America was the plan administrator. policy. later Stanley named his wife Selma as the beneficiary. transferred the policy to Union Central. When Stanley was approaching the maximum age of eligibility for the group policy. Claiming Stanley had not been eligible to participate in the group policy at the time of his death because he was not an active. Because the record shows there are material fact disputes about whether Stanley met the policy requirement of active. Fulltime employment and was eligible for coverage. The fiduciary's refusal to pay benefits under the plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (1989). The Finks do not dispute that standard of review on appeal. unreasonable.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/991036P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court3 held that appellant's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. I. BACKGROUND Jeffery Hull was an employee of Prudential Insurance Company. Delcau was a member physician of the Plan. Hull also claims that the Plan is vicariously liable for Dr. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 3 claims were preempted by ERISA. Fallon was not acting as a treating physician. Thus Hull's claims were based on a denial of benefits and could have been brought only under section 502(a) of ERISA (claims for denial of benefits). 4 and thus were preempted by federal law. Asserting that his claims are not preempted. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). 4 Because there is not complete diversity between the parties. The district court could only have jurisdiction to consider the case if there is federal question jurisdiction. An action arises under federal law only if issues of federal law are raised in the plaintiff's well pleaded complaint. An exception to this rule is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0792p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1994).[fn2] The Armbruster Group consists of fourteen Unisys employees who were terminated in February 1991 in the course of a reduction in force (RIF) at Unisys. On appeal the Armbruster Group contends they produced evidence sufficient to show what is commonly referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5050.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
<strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/95-2776.opa.html">TAMPA BAY INT'L TERMINALS V. TAMPA MARITIME ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tampa Bay Int'l Terminals v. That Appellee was an employer subject to withdrawal liability under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0443n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us on appeal are the following issues: 1) whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2780_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was unripe. The background to this offshoot of United's Chapter 11 proceeding is described in our decision of last March in In re UAL Corp. Which requires the bankruptcy judge's approval for contracts made by the debtor that are outside the ordinary course of business. As the Letter Agreement obviously was. Who again maintained that he should have allowed them to participate in the negotiations. Have resulted in their receiving replacement benefits too. The active pilots gave up what would have been their unsecured claims to these benefits in exchange for the replacement benefits. They would have been bound to receive less in the way of replacement benefits than the active pilots and indeed might well have received nothing. Because a retired pilot will have enjoyed the benefit of full pension payments since his retirement while an active pilot who is near retirement will have been contributing to the pension plan for many years without receiving any benefits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sherman and Sullivan & Worcester were on brief for Bernardo Nadal Ginard. Were on brief for Boston Children's Heart Foundation. Bernardo Nadal Ginard was alleged to have misappropriated the funds of the corporation of which he had served as both an officer and director. BACKGROUND Plaintiff appellee BCHF is a non profit corporation organized for the purposes of conducting medical research in the field of cardiology and providing medical services to patients at Boston Children's Hospital (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041560np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Was a wholly owned subsidiary of Raytheon Engineers & Constructors International. Which was. LaFata and other class members were the beneficiaries of RE&C's Termination of Employment Policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0104p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reasoning that Crosby received all of the life insurance benefits she was due and that the company's conduct did not warrant monetary penalties. Which noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/952965P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Funds appeal the court's decision that the owner operators driving for Berger Transfer are independent contractors. Asserting that they were Berger Transfer filed this action for declaratory judgment. To apply the Minnesota statute of limitations in the event the owner operators were found to be The Honorable Richard H. I. The Funds argue that issue preclusion prevents the district court from deciding whether the Berger Transfer owner operators were employees or independent contractors. Which held that a Berger Transfer owneroperator was an employee. The court noted that the Funds acknowledged that not all owner operators were classified the Thus. They did not prevent Berger Transfer from the court held that the owner operators Following a bench were independent The Funds contractors. Were employees or independent contractors. 1330 (8th Cir. 1984) (discussing the parameters We reverse the district court's decision not to apply offensive nonmutual issue preclusion only for an Before [issue preclusion] will bar relitigation of a factual issue in a subsequent proceeding.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063755np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denied Brandeburg total and permanent disability benefits and the District Court concluded that the decision to deny benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Who are familiar with the facts and procedural posture of this case. We will provide only a brief synopsis of the background of the case. Brandeburg was employed as a finishing operator by Corning. An individual is totally and permanently disabled when. ] he is found to be unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long. Continued and indefinite duration.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-1085.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time this court has had to consider the fractious battle between two former business partners over their firm's pension plan. Is before this court in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action against his former co owner. We affirm the district court's judgment.1 I We will assume familiarity with the account set forth in our prior opinion in this matter and will repeat only what is necessary for this appeal. Spitz and Tepfer were equal co owners of a retirement plan consulting business. They were its sole directors and officers: Spitz was president and Tepfer was secretary. Tepfer's appeal is thus properly before us. Fenster's and Frank's appeals are naturally unaffected by Tepfer's bankruptcy. This document was never adopted. That all employees were guaranteed to receive their allocation of the T&S annual contribution to the Plan. Even if they were not actively employed with T&S on the last day of the year. Requesting among other things that the court declare that the Fourth Plan Amendment and the Participant Loan Program were invalid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-3220.htm">02-3220 -- WELCH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 09/01/2004<BR></A><BR>
Welch was an employee of the Coleman Company and was eligible for coverage under Coleman's long term disability (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7187a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the requested contributions are valid under the LMRA. I. The factual history of this contract dispute is cumbersome but essential to a proper understanding of the issues raised on appeal. Its employees were members of local bricklayer unions. The CBA referenced in the 1989 IA was executed in August 1989 (1989 CBA).1 Similarly. The Company was not a member of the Building Trades Employers' Association of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts. The 1989 CBA referenced in the 1989 IA was succeeded by an August 2002 CBA (August 2002 CBA) with the local BAC affiliate in eastern Massachusetts. While the 2000 CBA tied to the 2000 IA was succeeded by a September 2002 CBA (September 2002 CBA).2 Both successor CBAs the August 2002 CBA and the September 2002 CBA contain a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTkwMTQtY3Zfc28ucGRm/03-9014-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/031069P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action by five benefit funds (the Funds) against Peter Scanlan. I. Background SBS is a closely held Minnesota corporation in which Peter. Marice Scanlan are shareholders. SBS Enterprises is an unincorporated entity owned by Peter Scanlan. The Funds moved for summary judgment on whether SBS and Scanlan were liable under the CBA for the deficient fringe benefit contributions. Finding that SBS was the alter ego of SBS Enterprises. The court also found that because SBS Enterprises was indistinguishable from SBS. Found as a matter of law that additional testimony or evidence was not needed to determine his personal liability. The Funds argue that Scanlan is the alter ego of SBS. He is jointly and severally liable for SBS's debts. We apply the corporate law standard to determine alter ego status because it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0055p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff sought life insurance benefits after the death of her husband and statutory penalties in the amount of $110 per day for each day she was not provided with the Plan documents she had requested. Was employed by M&M and/or one of its subsidiaries for nearly 30 years. He was earning an annual salary of $210. MetLife was the insurer of the life insurance benefits and was responsible for administering claims for such benefits. This election was referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1986.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wright was covered as a participant under Donnelley's Group Benefits Plan (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061642np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. The circumstances surrounding his termination are as follows. Zarrilli was on medical leave at that time. We will assume that Mr. 000) would have become
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1432p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Review of the grant of summary judgment is plenary. Factual Background Unisys is the product of the merger in September 1986 of the Burroughs Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1520.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This case requires us to address what is meant by de novo judicial review under ERISA of a denial of benefits when the ERISA plan does not preserve discretion in the plan administrator. That raises concomitant questions of whether the claimant is entitled to trial in the district court and what. Evidence may be admitted that is not in the administrative record before the ERISA administrative decision maker. Our conclusion is that given the nature of the claimant's challenge here that he did in fact establish his eligibility to benefits before the ERISA decision maker the claimant was not entitled to trial or to admit desired new evidence outside the administrative record or to discovery. This plan is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by ERISA. </P> <P> In June 1995. There was considerable exchange of medical information between Orndorf and Revere. Revere determined that Orndorf was not disabled due to pain from his back. The administrative record was closed.</P> <P> In February of 2002.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911736.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) provides in relevant part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyMzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3237-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether defendants were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3064.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan is subject to the <hr> Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-11736.man.html">MURPHY V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (4/20/2001, NO. 99-11736)<BR></A><BR>
The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. </EM> that an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1231p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/054178P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Starr was entitled to receive from Metro notice of his rights under COBRA. Metro's compliance with this provision or rather its failure to comply is the focus of this case. Interrupted Masanz's normal procedure for creating and sending COBRA notices before the March 3 Notice was mailed to Starr.1 In her deposition and testimony at trial. There is no record that the March 3 Notice was actually sent to Starr. The district court found that the March 3 Notice was never sent to Starr. 728.65 in medical expenses for treatment provided to his daughter that undisputedly would have been covered under the policy. Meyers did not testify and was never deposed. Starr offered testimony from a computer expert that Masanz's March 3 Notice to Starr was deleted from her computer a short time after its creation. The expert also testified that Meyers saved the file on an area of the server to which Masanz did not have access. 32 1 By letter dated August 30. That she was enclosing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1032.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
III with whom O'Reilly & Grosso was on brief for appellant. Charnas & Birmingham was on brief for appellee. Claiming the Fund's demand was barred by the statute of limitations. The court concluded that the Fund's demand was not barred. That resolution of its withdrawal liability dispute is committed in the first instance to arbitration. The district court noted that gaps of several years between expiration and renewal are not uncommon among the thousands of employers that adhere to the collective bargaining agreement through executing supplements with Teamsters locals. 3 provided. 29 U.S.C 1381 et seq. Claiming the Fund's demand for withdrawal liability payment some 12 years after its effective withdrawal was untimely. It was entitled to credit for post withdrawal contributions. Giroux simultaneously instigated this action in the District of Massachusetts for declaratory judgment that the Fund's demand was statutorily barred by the six year limitation contained in 1451(f). It stressed that the timeliness of its demand was governed exclusively by 1399(b).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/003120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was underwritten by Fortis Benefits Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911736.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ** * FILED U.S. The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the 3 relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. That an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The Court noted that the fee shifting language in the Clean Water Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051012p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-11736.man.html">MURPHY V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (4/20/2001, NO. 99-11736)<BR></A><BR>
The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. </EM> that an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1963.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. P.C. was on brief for appellee. The relief sought by the terms of the complaint was a temporary injunction (1) permitting him to return to work with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2147.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
There was some confusion in the district court over whether the suit was under section 502(a)(3) or 502(a)(2). It is clearly 2 No. 03 2147 the latter. Because the plaintiffs are asking that the trustees be ordered to make good the losses to the plan caused by their having breached fiduciary obligations. That is relief expressly authorized by section 409(a). Section 502(a)(2) is by its terms the vehicle for enforcing that section. While section 502(a)(3) is the vehicle for suits by individuals who are seeking relief just on their own behalf rather than on behalf of the plan. Was an ESOP an employee stock ownership plan. (We use scare quotes in recognition of the fact that there are no free lunches. Any benefit that an employer confers on an employee is reckoned by the employer as a cost and so affects the overall level of compensation that he is willing to pay.). Since the very purpose of an ESOP is to give employees stock in the employer. It would be anomalous if the ESOP's trustees were required to sell most of the stock donated by the employer in order to create a diversified portfolio of stocks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/022148u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings to Nabisco and dismissing against the Trustees of the Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry International Pension Fund as moot. We recite only those facts and portions 2 of the procedural history that are helpful to our discussion. Wilson and the seventeen other appellants are current or retired employees of Nabisco at its Philadelphia. They are also participants in a multi employer pension plan. Nabisco is a contributing employer to the Plan based on collective bargaining agreements between it and the union requiring Nabisco to make contributions to the Plan on behalf of employees in the covered bargaining unit. The women's claims for benefits from the Plan stem from a class action that was filed in 1975 and settled in 1981. They allege that the payments they received from the Karan Settlement Fund were payments received for back pay for periods in which they allegedly were discriminatorily laid off between 1973 and 1981.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961876P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellee Alton Cash's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB418F69F649196D8825701F0015E13C/$file/0356514.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Brent Boyd was drafted in the third round of the 1980 National Football League (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002106.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court on the Paul Revere Insurance Company's challenge to the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. M.D. was a beneficiary of an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA and which was provided through an insurance policy. The policy was purchased and paid for by his employer. Band certified:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Which was issued by UNUM with an effective date of June 1. Under a provision entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981967.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question before this Court is whether a claimant who never received written notice of his right of conversion as guaranteed by an insurance policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Is entitled to benefits. Canada Life first filed this action in district court seeking a declaration that at the time of his death Lebowitz was not covered by the Policy. Although Canada Life may not have been required by ERISA to provide Lebowitz with written notice of his right of conversion. The life insurance policy was a Policyholder Administered Group Life Benefit policy. WTP was designated the Policyholder/Plan Sponsor. Canada Life was designated the Claims Administrator. The Summary Plan Description document (SPD) of the Policy was distributed to all partners. Lebowitz was still considered a full time senior partner by WTP. III (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/97542815D6D12DBB88256D490069416A/$file/0116596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary question on appeal is whether HJA's action to enforce the terms of its agreement with Foster constitutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0555n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not the result of a mine accident. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The Trustees contend that the district court improperly applied the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991745P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nebraska AT&T facility was spun off and became part of Lucent. Lucent assumed responsibility for all benefit claims of former AT&T employees who became or would have become Lucent employees. Sahulka was also employed by AT&T at its Omaha. Nebraska facility and is currently 1 of her husband. Was an AT&T employee at the time of his death on October 21. Whichever is greater.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/012320u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Berrafato was employed by Prudential as an insurance sales representative in 1965. He was later appointed general manager of a district office. Held that at will position until January 6. Berrafato was fired in connection with allegations that he concealed video tapes from regulatory compliance inspectors. Berrafato brought suit against Prudential claiming he was entitled to disability and retirement benefits. Prudential responded that Berrafato was disqualified from receiving these benefits because he had been terminated for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTY3NjJfc28ucGRm/05-6762_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-7102.htm">97-7102 -- STATE INSURANCE FUND V. SOUTHERN STAR FOODS, INC. -- 05/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) decision that its claim for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums is not entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/031354np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was employed by appellee University of Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1855.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a class action on behalf of retired employees and surviving spouses of retired employees of Rockford Powertrain. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether RPI contractually was obligated to maintain retirement benefits for the life of its retirees and their surviving spouses. Further that RPI was not equitably estopped from modifying the benefits. The terms of the plan were described in a booklet entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/033654P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeals were consolidated. The Plan is obligated to pay a fixed level of benefits to its participants upon retirement. Are both Plan fiduciaries. A hedge fund that invested primarily in collateralized mortgage obligations fixed income securities that are derived from and secured by pools of private home mortgages. Granite was severely leveraged and brokerage firms began demanding additional money to serve as margin. Granite was forced to declare bankruptcy and was ultimately liquidated. Alleging that 3M was liable to the Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1109 for breaching its fiduciary duties. The district court granted 3M summary judgment on the prohibited transaction claim because Participants presented no evidence that the compensation agreement 3 was unreasonable. Indicating that further discovery was needed to determine whether Participants could establish an essential element of their claim a loss to the Plan. To conclude that participants in defined benefit pension plans have no entitlement to surplus funds.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/267EA28558A7E133882571D90081380C/$file/0416380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court held that they were entitled to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0348p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs were employed by SKF until June 11. Plaintiffs allege that there was no agreement to merge the two pension plans to guarantee that there was absolutely no change in their pension status. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to pension benefits because they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971431.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Elizabeth Edmonds was an executive secretary for Hughes for fifteen years. She was assigned a new supervisor at work. Her new supervisor was not sympathetic to her need for occasional time off to care for her mother. Thomsen is a licensed clinical social worker. 2 Edmonds filed a claim for disability benefits under two welfare benefit plans maintained by Hughes. The plans provide for short term disability benefits (STD) for a maximum of 180 days and long term disability benefits (LTD) for up to 24 months.4 Hughes is nominally the administrator of both plans. All discretion usually resident in the administrator is vested in Hartford. Their counsel conceded at oral argument that Hartford was not paid merely a fee for administrative services. There are some minor differences between the plans. That is. The other side of the page is not in the record. Until her paid sick leave was exhausted on October 14. That Edmonds' claim for LTD was still being evaluated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB3AAD7691D9927788257296000EC53F/$file/0456768.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attorney Ronald Dean said that his $475 hourly rate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-7158a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Katz were on the briefs. Sweeney were on the brief. Because the district court's order is not final. The Pilots are each eligible for pension benefits under a plan collectively bargained in 1972 between US Airways and the Air Line Pilots Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0070n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff interviewed and was offered a position in June of 1989. Plaintiff alleges that before he was hired by defendant. He was told orally by a corporate recruiter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214044.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The policy is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Barbara Kennedy was Clint Kennedy's second wife. They were married from 1983 to July of 1991. Mary Beth Kennedy was Clint Kennedy's third wife and was married to him from July of 1991 until the time of his death. BACKGROUND Clint Kennedy was employed by Georgia Pacific Corporation for more than twenty five years. His last position was that of Executive Vice President and. Naming his then wife Barbara as the sole beneficiary if she were still living at the time of his death. We will omit the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031223.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the decision of the Trustees was supported by substantial evidence. McCoy was hit in the head by a falling rock while working and was treated in the emergency room for a sprained neck. He was advised to miss three days of work. A follow up appointment was scheduled. His attending physician completed a report for the workers' compensation commission in which McCoy's diagnosis was listed as cervical muscle spasms. McCoy continued working in the mines until he was laid off in 1994. It appears that McCoy's direct employer was the Clinchfield Coal Company. Attorney's Dictionary of Medicine Word Finder s 42).) 3 Degenerative disc disease is not a medical term of art. It is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021149.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Brenner claims that the University failed to inform him that enrollment in the Retirement Plan was not automatic and. The district court rejected Brenner's claim on the ground that there was no genuine dispute that the University sent Brenner. He was told that the University would provide him with retirement benefits and assumed that he would be automatically enrolled in the Retirement Plan. Enrollment in the plan was not. An employee must have attained a certain age or have been employed at least a specified number of years. Once this requirement was lowered to 32 on July 1. Since Brenner was now eligible for enrollment. The memorandum also included a waiver form that Brenner was to return if he chose not to enroll. The University offered testimony that the memorandum was sent to Brenner's campus address through campus mail. That such memoranda were the normal means by which the University notified employees of their eligibility status prior to ERISA's enactment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle">< |
