Opinion
1:09-CV-1675
03-19-2012
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant.
APPEARANCES BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Attorneys for Defendant OF COUNSEL David J. Butler, Esq. Thomas R. Lotterman, Esq. William S. D. Cravens, Esq. Joseph M. Kretteck, Esq. Garth D. Wilson, Esq. Paula J. Connelly, Esq.
(FJS/JMF)
APPEARANCES
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL
David J. Butler, Esq.
Thomas R. Lotterman, Esq.
William S. D. Cravens, Esq.
Joseph M. Kretteck, Esq.
Garth D. Wilson, Esq.
Paula J. Connelly, Esq.
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 57, and Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 58. The Court heard oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, these motions on March 13, 2012.
After hearing the parties' oral arguments, the Court advised counsel that there were issues of fact regarding whether Defendant had breached its fiduciary duties, which precluded granting the parties the relief they sought. In addition, the Court questioned Defendant's counsel about the current status of the new plan asset evaluation that Defendant had undertaken for all four terminated US Airways pension plans, including the plan at issue in this case.
On February 3, 2012, Defendant's counsel notified Magistrate Judge Facciola and Plaintiff's counsel that Defendant estimated that this new plan asset evaluation would be completed by September 30, 2012. See Dkt. No. 76.
Accordingly, after considering the parties' submissions and oral arguments and the relevant law, and for the reasons the Court stated at oral argument, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant shall file with the Court and serve on opposing counsel a report addressing the current status of the new plan asset evaluation on or before April 13, 2012; and the Court further
ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a status conference with the Court on April 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's unopposed motion for an expedited hearing and consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Syracuse, New York
___________________
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge