Giles v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM to Counsel and ORDER granting Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Reopen Case; Lifting Stay; directing counsel submit a joint status report as set forth. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 5/14/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Chambers of
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0742

May 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
Re:

Jimmie V. Giles v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
Civil Action No. ELH-12-634

Dear Counsel:
I am in receipt of Mr. Hogan’s letter dated May 13, 2013, captioned as a “Request to
Reopen Case.” I have directed the Clerk to docket Mr. Hogan’s letter, with its attachments. See
ECF 52.
As you know, by way of a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 21,
2012 (ECF 49 & 50), I denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment and remanded this
matter to the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan for
reconsideration in light of the Memorandum Opinion. I observed that, pursuant to Dickens v.
Aetna Life Insurance Co., 677 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2012), the Court would retain jurisdiction to
consider a later challenge by either party to the Retirement Board’s determination on remand,
and stated that the denial of the motions was “without prejudice to the submission of new
motions following the Retirement Board’s determination on remand.” ECF 49 at 39. In
addition, I directed that the case be stayed and administratively closed, pending the result of the
proceedings on remand.
In his letter, Mr. Hogan advises that, on remand, the Retirement Board again denied Mr.
Giles’s application for “Football Degenerative” total and permanent disability benefits.
Moreover, Mr. Hogan states that plaintiff “believes that this determination is contrary to the
holdings of [my] Memorandum Opinion; [and] that the determination is arbitrary and capricious
and an abuse of the Retirement Board’s discretion.”
I will construe Mr. Hogan’s letter (ECF 52) as a motion to reopen the case and lift the
stay, and will grant it. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Mr. Hogan’s letter of May 13, 2013 (ECF 52), construed as a motion to reopen the case
and lift the stay, is GRANTED. Therefore, the stay imposed by the Court’s Order
entered November 21, 2012 (ECF 50) is LIFTED, and the Clerk is directed to REOPEN
this case; and
2. Counsel for the parties shall confer and submit, within 21 days after this Order is
docketed, a joint status report which shall include: (1) a proposed briefing schedule for

renewed motions; (2) whether the parties request referral for a settlement conference to
be conducted by a United States Magistrate Judge; and/or (3) any other matters that
require the Court’s attention.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

-2-