|
Retirees’ Motions for Class Action and Collective Action filed January 29, 2009
As scheduled, on January 29, 2009 the plaintiffs’ legal team for the retirees filed two motions to make this case a class action and collective action. The first motion formally asks the Court to make this case a “class action” on the federal benefits law (ERISA) claims and the state law claims for age discrimination. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the motion is successful all retirees and eligible spouses and other dependents who fit the class description will become part of the case without any need for a specific action on their part. A different set of rules applies to the retirees’ second motion asking for a “collective action” for purposes of the federal law age discrimination claims.
The retirees’ second motion filed on January 29, 2009 formally asks the Court to allow a “collective action” on the federal law age discrimination claims. Under the different procedures for a collective action, if the motion is successful the Court at a later date will authorize a notice to be mailed to the retirees informing them of their right to “opt-in” and join the collective action by completing and returning a simple form. Until that notice is received, there is no action that anyone needs to take to join the collective action.
On February 24, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to postpone the briefing and decision on the motions to certify the class action and collective action. The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, denied this defense motion in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009. If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009, click on the tab for “Court Rulings” on the left side of this page.
As directed by the Court, the defendants filed their memorandum opposing the class certification and collective action motion on September 22, 2009. Class Counsel filed their reply briefs on the class certification and collective action motion on October 20, 2009. The briefing of this motion is now complete and the parties are awaiting a decision by the Court.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of any of the briefs supporting or opposing the certification of the class action or collective action, click on the appropriate line below.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
|
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
On March 2, 2009, the defendants filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” asking the Court to dismiss most of the claims in the case for lack of legal or factual support.
Class Counsel filed their memorandum opposing the defense motion for partial summary judgment on April 7, 2009. They also filed a motion asking the Court to postpone consideration of any summary judgment motion due to the fact that discovery of documents and information from the defendants was incomplete.
Defendants filed both a reply memorandum supporting their motion for partial summary judgment and their memorandum opposing the motion to postpone summary judgment on May 29, 2009. Class Counsel filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to postpone on June 18, 2009.
The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to postpone summary judgment proceedings, and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (without prejudice to its being re-filed later in the case), in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009. If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009, click on the tab for “Court Rulings” on the left side of this page.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of any of the briefs supporting or opposing the motion for partial summary judgment or the motion to postpone its consideration, click on the appropriate line below.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
|
Briefs Relating to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (April-June 2008)
As scheduled, on June 23, 2008, the attorneys for the defendants filed their reply memorandum in further support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
To view, download, or print a copy of the Defendants’ Reply Memorandum, click on the appropriate line below.
|
As scheduled, on May 30, 2008 the attorneys for the plaintiff retirees filed their memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants will file a reply memorandum around June 22, 2008.
To view, download, or print a copy of either the plaintiffs’ legal Memorandum explaining the reasons why the case should not be dismissed, or the Exhibits to the memorandum, click on the appropriate line below.
|
|
As scheduled, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss parts of the lawsuit on April 30, 2008. A motion to dismiss is a request to the Court to rule that a legal claim cannot be established under any possible set of facts.
To view, download, or print a copy of either the defendants’ legal Memorandum, explaining their motion to dismiss, or the Exhibits to the memorandum, click on the appropriate line below.
|
|
NOTE: Many of the documents posted on this website are in the form of a “PDF” file. If you have not already installed on your computer the free computer program, Adobe Reader, that will enable you to open and read PDF files, you can download the program for free by clicking on the Adobe symbol and following the simple instructions on that website.
|
|
|
