PERELMAN v. PERELMAN et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO.109) IS DENIED. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY IS JOINED AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED TO ADD RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY AS A PARTY DEF ENDANT TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MAKE SERVICE OF PROCESS UNDER RULE 4. THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. NO.106) IS GRANTED AND DENIED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS RAYMOND PERELMAN AND JASON GUZEK FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. NO.107) IS GRANTED AND DENIED AS OUTLINED HEREIN, ETCSIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 1/24/2013. 1/24/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, EMAILED (kk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY E. PERELMAN
v.
RAYMOND G. PERELMAN,
JASON GUZEK, and GENERAL
REFRACTORIES COMPANY

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-5622

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of January 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Docket No.

109) is DENIED.
2.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2), Reliance Trust Company is joined as an

additional defendant.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to add Reliance Trust Company as a party

defendant to the Second Amended Complaint and make service of process under Rule 4.
3.

The Motion of Defendant General Refractories Company for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Docket No. 106) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks:
(a) dismissal of Paragraphs 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) of the Second Amended Complaint’s
Prayer for Relief, and to limit Paragraph 8(d) thereof to a request for an audit to determine the
Plan’s current ability to meet is financial obligations; and
(b) dismissal of that section of Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer
for Relief clause seeking as equitable relief for the claims presented that “those provisions of the
Pension Plan [ ] which purport to relieve and/or to indemnify the Trustee from responsibility or
liability for any obligation or duty owed under ERISA to be declared null and void as against
public policy and violative of ERISA.”
Paragraphs 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) of the Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer for Relief

clause are DISMISSED as to Defendant General Refractories Company. Paragraph 8(d) of the
Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer for Relief clause is DISMISSED as to Defendant General
Refractories Company to the extent that it seeks anything other than an audit to determine the
Plan’s current ability to meet is financial obligations. Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended
Complaint’s Prayer for Relief clause is DISMISSED as to Defendant General Refractories
Company to the extent that it seeks a declaration that “those provisions of the Pension Plan [ ]
which purport to relieve and/or to indemnify the Trustee from responsibility or liability for any
obligation or duty owed under ERISA to be declared null and void as against public policy and
violative of ERISA.”
The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
4.

The Motion of Defendants Raymond Perelman and Jason Guzek for Judgment on

the Pleadings (Docket No. 107) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks:
(a) dismissal of Paragraphs 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) of the Second Amended Complaint’s
Prayer for Relief, and to limit Paragraph 8(d) thereof to a request for an audit to determine the
Plan’s current ability to meet is financial obligations; and
(b) dismissal of that section of Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer
for Relief clause seeking as equitable relief for the claims presented that “those provisions of the
Pension Plan [ ] which purport to relieve and/or to indemnify the Trustee from responsibility or
liability for any obligation or duty owed under ERISA to be declared null and void as against
public policy and violative of ERISA.”
Paragraphs 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) of the Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer for Relief
clause are DISMISSED as to Defendants Raymond Perelman and Jason Guzek. Paragraph 8(d)
of the Second Amended Complaint’s Prayer for Relief clause is DISMISSED as to Defendants
Raymond Perelman and Jason Guzek to the extent that it seeks anything other than an audit to

determine the Plan’s current ability to meet is financial obligations. Paragraph 9 of the Second
Amended Complaint’s Prayer for Relief clause is DISMISSED as to Defendants Raymond
Perelman and Jason Guzek to the extent that it seeks a declaration that “those provisions of the
Pension Plan [ ] which purport to relieve and/or to indemnify the Trustee from responsibility or
liability for any obligation or duty owed under ERISA to be declared null and void as against
public policy and violative of ERISA.”
The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John R. Padova

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.