Gittings v. Tredegar Film Products et al

Filing 58

MOTION by Defendant Tredegar Corporation Employee Benefit Plan for judgment on the Administrative Record (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. [Docket #52]. 4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleged that the denial of long term disability

benefits was arbitrary and capricious 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 the 12th day of February, 2010, a true and correct copy of the following instrument was sent via electronic means and to the following counsel of record, and no other means of service is required: BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON Kimberly A. Carr 12 W. Cass Street Joliet, IL 60432 BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON Allie MacInnis Burnet Erin Elizabeth Buck Kaiser Molly Stofen Basarich 25 E. Washington St. Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60602 CARPONELLI & KRUG Stephen P. Carponelli Ross Stephen Carponelli 230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 250 Chicago, IL 60606

BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON Joseph E Urani 2100 Manchester Road #1420 Wheaton, IL 60187 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP William F. Dugan Colin Michael Connor 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603

__s/Eric P. Mathisen

3