Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001 v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 75 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2017, that defendant's motion to reconsider 75 is granted to the extent that the court will revisit the issue of whether the dispute must be decided by the Plan Administrator. Both parties shall submit briefing by May 5, 2017 Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 4/20/2017. (sz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES IN
AEROSPACE, INTERNATIONAL
FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL
AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2001,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-1281-JTM
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is defendant’s Motion to Revisit Issue on Remand (Dkt. 75) following
the Tenth Circuit’s reversal of this court’s summary judgment determination in favor of
defendant that a grievance over employee healthcare contributions was not arbitrable under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Defendant now asks this court to revisit the issue of whether
the grievance must be decided by the Plan Administrator of the healthcare plan based on Judge
O’Brien’s concurring opinion. That opinion: 1) described this court’s characterization of the
grievance as debatable and opined the grievance was “over the nomenclature used to deduct the
amount” and not merely over the amount deducted (Dkt. 78, Concurring Op. at 7); 2) concluded
that “[t]his dispute seems well within the Plan Administrator’s power to decide” (id.); and
3) noted that even though Sprint had waived this issue for purposes of appeal, the district judge
was not precluded from revisiting the issue on remand “should he see fit to do so” (id. at 8).
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing it was prematurely filed, the law of the case stands, and
defendant waived the Plan Administrator argument on appeal.
1

The court construes defendant’s motion as one pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which provides
that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Although Spirit’s motion was
premature, the court has jurisdiction to consider the motion upon the issuance of the appellate
mandate on April 7, 2017. See Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992). In
deference to Judge O’Brien’s concurring opinion, the court exercises its discretion and will
revisit the issue of whether the grievance must be decided by the Plan Administrator. Both
parties shall submit briefing on this sole issue by May 5, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2017, that defendant’s motion to reconsider
(Dkt. 75) is granted to the extent that the court will revisit the issue of whether the dispute must
be decided by the Plan Administrator. Both parties shall submit briefing by May 5, 2017.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
Chief United States District Judge

2