Donald Corley v. Commonwealth Industries, Inc., et al

Filing

OPINION: the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Gilbert S. Merritt, AUTHORING Circuit Judge; Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge and John M. Rogers, Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 14-5789 Document: 33-2 Filed: 05/08/2015 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0343n.06 Case No. 14-5789 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DONALD CORLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN; COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC.; and BENEFITS COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN Defendants-Appellees. ____________________________________/ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) May 08, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Throughout this ERISA litigation, Plaintiff Donald Corley has repeatedly argued that the plain language of his pension-benefits Plan entitles him to a larger lump-sum pension payment than he actually received. This appeal is the second time this case has been before our court on this issue. See Fallin v. Commonwealth Indus., Inc., 695 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2012). In the first appeal, we held that the Benefits Committee’s interpretation of the Case: 14-5789 Document: 33-2 Filed: 05/08/2015 Page: 2 Case No. 14-5789, Corley v. Commonwealth Indus. et al. Plan’s terms was not arbitrary or capricious. See id. at 516. Corley fully briefed this issue then, and it is precisely the same argument he raises now. Because we squarely decided the issue in the first appeal, we hold that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from reconsidering it. See Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1071 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?