McDowell et al v. Price et al

Filing 535

ORDER that pltfs' 531 Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's April 4, 2012 Order 524 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/12/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
KENNITH McDOWELL, ROBERT
MAULDING, LUTHER STRIPLING,
RUDY KYLE, FRED DOLLAR, JAMES
JOSLIN, JAMES MILNER, JOE ELLIS,
DAVID ELLIS, DANIEL STRIPLING, and
JANET STRIPLING,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ELBERT PRICE, individually and as Trustee *
for these plans: Bud Price’s Excavating
*
Service Inc. Profit-Sharing Plan, Bud Price’s *
Excavating Service, Inc. Retirement Plan,
*
Price’s Utility Contractors, Inc. Retirement
*
Plan and for six unnamed plans; MARY
*
RUTH PRICE, individually and as Trustee
*
for these plans: Bud Price’s Excavating
*
Service, Inc. Profit-Sharing Plan, Bud Price’s *
Excavating Service, Inc. Retirement Plan,
*
Price’s Utility Contractors, Inc. Retirement
*
Plan and for six unnamed plans (Plans A-F); *
Bud Price’s Excavating Service, Inc.
*
Profit-Sharing Plan; Price’s Utility Contractors, *
Inc. Retirement Plan; Bud Price’s Excavating *
Service, Inc. Retirement Plan; six unnamed
*
plans (Plans A-F); Price’s Utility Contractors, *
Inc. as plan administrator for Price’s Utility
*
Contractor’s Inc., Retirement Plan and up to
*
six unnamed plans; Bud Price’s Excavating
*
Service, Inc. as plan administrator of Bud
*
Price’s Excavating Service, Inc. Profit*
Sharing Plan, Bud Price’s Excavating Service, *
Inc. Retirement Plan, and up to six unnamed *
plans (A-F),
*
Defendants.
*

No. 4:08-cv-03979-SWW-HDY

ORDER
Plaintiffs Kennith McDowell, Robert Maulding, Luther Stripling, Rudy Kyle, Fred
Dollar, James Joslin, James Milner, Joe Ellis, David Ellis, Daniel Stripling, and Janet Stripling,

former employees or beneficiaries of former employees of defendants Bud Price’s Excavating
Service, Inc. and Price’s Utility Contractors, Inc., bring this action pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to have their
benefits under certain profit sharing plans and defined benefit plans maintained by defendants
determined and paid. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge H. David Young for further
proceedings and recommendation.
Plaintiffs appeal [doc.#531] the Magistrate Judge’s April 4, 2012 Order [doc.#524] that
ordered defendants to file certain re-calculation of benefits owed from the 1997 defined benefit
plan by the close of business on April 23, 2012, and to support their re-calculation of benefits
with the appropriate documentation.1 The Court has considered the arguments raised by
plaintiffs and finds no basis for setting aside the Magistrate Judge’s April 4, 2012 Order.2
Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiff’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

This is plaintiffs’ eighth appeal of an Order of the Magistrate Judge since March 2010. See
document entries 268, 293, 368, 382, 394, 421, and 504.
2

Plaintiffs point to a typographical error in the second sentence of the Magistrate Judge’s order
(the defendants are referred to as plaintiffs) but this has no bearing on the substance of the Magistrate
Judge’s Order.

2