Trial Court Decisions
1) Graf v. DaimlerChrysler, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (W. Dist. Mich. 2002): Plaintiff sued his former employer seeking payment of his employer-sponsored disability benefits. The defendant employer benefit plan administrator moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims were preempted under ERISA and that plaintiff failed to state an actionable claim. The district court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the case.
2) The Retirement Committee of the Rouge Steel Tax Efficient Savings Plan for Hourly Employees v. Cortese, et al., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17190 (E. Dist. Mich. 2000): Employer-sponsored pension plan filed suit seeking a declaration that under the terms of the plan, the former plan participant's mother was the proper beneficiary of his plan benefits. The district court agreed with the pension plan's interpretation of its provisions and granted judgment in favor of the mother.
3) Stallard et al. v. Ceridian Benefit Services, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 05-6667 (2006): Counsel to third-party administrator, Ceridian Benefit Services, Inc. in action brought by former employees and participants in company-sponsored group health plans alleging violations of ERISA and continuation benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). Case settled successfully after the court ruled for Defendants on several key legal issues. (2006)
4) Fallin, et al. v. Commonwealth Indus. Cash Balance Plan, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 521 F. Supp. 2d 592 (W.D. Ky. 2007): Plaintiffs, a large group of former employees, sued defendant employer and employee benefit plan, alleging that plan amendments converting the plan to a cash balance plan violated the law and that they had not received appropriate benefits. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky agreed, dismissing almost all claims as time-barred. The Court then considered the merits of the claim and granted summary judgment to Defendants.
5) Collins v. Commonwealth Indus., et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:07-cv-57 (2008)(pending): Plaintiffs, a large group of former employees, sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and plan fiduciaries, contending that they were wrongfully denied access to benefit plan documents. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the plan documents in question, that Plaintiffs were not wrongfully denied access, and that Plaintiffs suffered no legal damages. Case is pending.
2) The Retirement Committee of the Rouge Steel Tax Efficient Savings Plan for Hourly Employees v. Cortese, et al., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17190 (E. Dist. Mich. 2000): Employer-sponsored pension plan filed suit seeking a declaration that under the terms of the plan, the former plan participant's mother was the proper beneficiary of his plan benefits. The district court agreed with the pension plan's interpretation of its provisions and granted judgment in favor of the mother.
3) Stallard et al. v. Ceridian Benefit Services, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 05-6667 (2006): Counsel to third-party administrator, Ceridian Benefit Services, Inc. in action brought by former employees and participants in company-sponsored group health plans alleging violations of ERISA and continuation benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). Case settled successfully after the court ruled for Defendants on several key legal issues. (2006)
4) Fallin, et al. v. Commonwealth Indus. Cash Balance Plan, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 521 F. Supp. 2d 592 (W.D. Ky. 2007): Plaintiffs, a large group of former employees, sued defendant employer and employee benefit plan, alleging that plan amendments converting the plan to a cash balance plan violated the law and that they had not received appropriate benefits. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky agreed, dismissing almost all claims as time-barred. The Court then considered the merits of the claim and granted summary judgment to Defendants.
5) Collins v. Commonwealth Indus., et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:07-cv-57 (2008)(pending): Plaintiffs, a large group of former employees, sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and plan fiduciaries, contending that they were wrongfully denied access to benefit plan documents. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the plan documents in question, that Plaintiffs were not wrongfully denied access, and that Plaintiffs suffered no legal damages. Case is pending.