Klotz v. Xerox Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Klotz v. Xerox Corp.

    332 F. App'x 668 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming district court's grant of summary judgement in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to exhaust her available administrative remedies before filing suit

    SUMMARY ORDER Robin Klotz appeals from a May 28, 2008, 557 F.Supp.2d 400, order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granting summary judgment in. favor of Defendants-Appellees on the ground that Klotz failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Klotz seeks the restoration of disability benefits under a plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

  2. Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Grp.

    692 F. Supp. 3d 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    In Popovchak and Novick, the relevant plans provided that the statute of limitations began to run from the denial of benefits on appeal.

    DOL regulations prohibit claims procedures from requiring more than two appeals before judicial review becomes available. See Klotz v. Xerox Corp., 557 F. Supp. 2d 400, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(c)(2)). B. Application

  3. Suthar v. Eastman Kodak Company

    No. 09-CV-6403-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Acknowledging that, unless a "clear and positive" showing of futility is made, administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to suit

    Eastman Kodak, 452 F.3d at 219 (quoting Jones, 223 F.3d 130 at 140 (internal quotation marks omitted)).Klotz v. Xerox Corp., 557 F. Supp. 2d 400, 407 (W.D.N.Y. 2008), aff'd Klotz v. Xerox Corp., No. 08-3214-cv, 332 Fed. Appx. 668 (2d Cir. Jun. 5, 2009). Nothing plead in the complaint shows that Plaintiff timely exhausted his administrative remedies under the KMAP.