Gittings v. Tredegar Film Products et al

Filing 135

MOTION by Defendant Tredegar Corporation Employee Benefit Plan for judgment (Mathisen, Eric)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DALE C. GITTINGS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TREDEGAR CORPORATION,
TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS – LAKE
ZURICH, LLC, and TREDEGAR
CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
PLAN,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 08 cv 4972
Judge Milton I. Shadur
Magistrate Judge Schenkier

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Defendant, Tredegar Corporation Employee Benefit Plan (the “Plan”), by and through its
counsel, moves for judgment on the administrative record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52. In
support of this Motion, Defendant states as follows:
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this

dispute pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”).
2.

The parties and the Court have agreed to the briefing and submission of Plaintiff’s

claim for LTD pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so that the Court may
weigh the evidence and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. See, Diaz v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20067 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007); Hess v. Hartford Life
&Accident Ins. Co., 274 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 2001) (in an ERISA case, the applicable standard
of review was the one found in Rule 52(a), where the parties stipulated to the facts that made up

the administrative record, and “the procedure the parties followed ... [was] more akin to a bench
trial than to a summary judgment ruling.”).
3.

The parties have agreed to the admissibility of the administrative record which

was filed on February 1, 2010 and June 17, 2011. [Docket #52, 130-132].
4.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint challenged the alleged that the denial of

Plaintiff’s long term disability claim while also claiming that Plaintiff was always able to
perform his job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation from his employer.
5.

The undisputed administrative record evidence shows that the Plan is entitled to

judgment in its favor.
6.

In support of this Motion, Defendant submits its Memorandum in Support of its

Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, which is hereby incorporated in this Motion
as if stated fully herein.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tredegar Corporation Employee Benefit Plan, respectfully
requests that this Court GRANT its Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, and
award Defendant its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending this lawsuit, and such other
relief as the Court deems proper.
Respectfully submitted,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
/s/ Eric P. Mathisen
Eric P. Mathisen, #19475-71 (IN)
225 Aberdeen Drive, Suite F
Valparaiso, in 46385
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 20, 2011, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the
Court's CM/ECF system.

Susan Best
BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON
25 E. Washington St.
Suite 210
Chicago, IL 60602
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
/s/ Eric P. Mathisen
Eric P. Mathisen, #19475-71 (Indiana)
225 Aberdeen Drive, Suite F
Valparaiso, IN 46385
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

3