Bleil v. Williams Production RMT Company, LLC, et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting 76 Joint Motion to Vacate Trial and Strike Deadlines. The forthcoming trial preparation conference and trial are vacated, and the impending attendant deadlines are stricken. The Summary Judgment Order is modified to reflect the pa rties' stipulation that Plaintiff was paid in full for the 863 RSUs in question. Granting 55 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment should be entered for Defendants and Defendants shall be awarded their costs, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/11/2012. (eseam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00997-LTB-GPG
ROBERT W. BLEIL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN, a welfare benefits plan,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before me on the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Trial and Strike Deadlines
[Doc 76]. After considering the parties’ stipulations, for the reasons below, I GRANT the motion
and render the additional orders enunciated below.
I. Background
In this action Plaintiff Robert W. Bleil asserted four claims of relief against Defendants after
defendant Williams Production RMT Company, LLC (the “Company”)–now known as WPX Energy
Rocky Mountain, LLC–terminated him and, in doing so, refused to pay him severance and certain
restricted stock unit awards (“RSUs”). See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Def.s’
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc # 74 (hereinafter, the “Summary Judgment Order”). These
claims were (1) wrongful discharge; (2) breach of contract; (3) violation of § 510 of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1140; and (4) equitable relief pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).

Defendants then moved for summary judgment as to all of these claims. See Def.s’ Mot. for
Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief, Doc # 55. I denied the motion insofar as it requested
summary judgment as to that portion of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim which sought payment
of 863 RSUs awarded to him on November 1, 2006. See Summary Judgment Order at 23-24, 35.
I did so because I found that “there was a genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to those
863 RSUs.” Id. at 23. I granted the rest of the motion. See id. at 35. This left the case to proceed
with only that fraction of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against the Company. The parties’
instant motion followed.
Currently, a trial preparation conference is scheduled for December 28, 2012, and trial is set
for January 14, 2013. Other impending deadlines also loom.
II. Discussion
In the instant motion, the parties agree and stipulate that, following his discharge, Plaintiff
was paid in full for the 863 RSUs discussed above. They further agree and stipulate that, in light
thereof, a trial is unnecessary. On this basis they make the following requests. First, that the trial
preparation conference and trial be vacated, and upcoming attendant deadlines stricken. Second,
that the Summary Judgment Order be modified to reflect the parties’ stipulation concerning the 863
RSUs. Third, that the Court take any further action warranted by these stipulations.
I agree with the parties that in light of their stipulation, no issues remain, and, thus, a trial
is unnecessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Trial and
Strike Deadlines [Doc 76] is GRANTED. The forthcoming trial preparation conference and trial
are therefore VACATED, and the impending attendant deadlines are stricken. The Summary
Judgment Order is also hereby modified to reflect the parties’ stipulation that Plaintiff was paid in

2

full for the 863 RSUs in question. Consequently, IT IS NOW FURTHER ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief [Doc #55] is GRANTED in
whole, meaning summary judgment should be entered for Defendants, and that Defendants be
awarded their costs.

Date: December

11th , 2012 in Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

3