Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
11 opinions for “Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I”
DECISION AND ORDER MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge. I. Introduction Daniel E. Gill (“Gill”), Thomas C. McDermott (“McDermott”), and Jay T. Holmes (“Holmes”) (hereinafter, collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are retired Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B & L”) executives and are the sole participants in the Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (“the Plan” or “SERP I”).
DECISION & ORDER MARIAN W. PAYSON, United States Magistrate Judge. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By Order of Hon. Charles J. Siragusa, United States District Judge, dated September 30, 2009, all pretrial matters in the above-captioned ease have been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A)-(B). (Docket #27). Plaintiffs Daniel Gil
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Court Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jennifer Easter brings this action on behalf of her son, B.E., under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Prepaid He
SHORT ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Familiarity with the procedural and factual history of this case is presumed. By way of background, by Memorandum of Decision and Order dated December 6, 2013, the Court found, after a bench trial, that the Plaintiff MHANY Management, Inc. and Plaintiff-Intervenor New York Communities for Change, Inc. (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) established the liability of the Defendan
DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge This action arises out of a commercial real estate lease relating to a retail devel- ■ *320opment in Rochester, New York. On September 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order (Dkt. # 56), granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Anthony J. Costello & Son
Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPpublic domain
18‐487‐cv Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2019 (Submitted: October 23, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019) Docket No. 18‐487‐cv TIMOTHY D. LAURENT AND SMEETA SHARON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Barrella v. Village of Freeportpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case is presumed. By way of background, on May 30, 2014, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict against both the Defendants the Village of Freeport and Andrew Hardwick, former Mayor of the Village of Freeport, for the sum of $150,000 in back pay damages, $1,000,000 in
Cohen v. Liberty Mut. Grp. Inc.public domain
VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge Plaintiff David Cohen ("Plaintiff") brings this action, pursuant to § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendants Liberty Mutual Group Inc. Executive Partnership Deferred Compensation Plan ("EPDCP") and Liberty Mutual Group Inc. 2012 Executive Partnership Plan ("EPP" and, collectively, "Defendants" or the "Plans"), seeking review o
Meidl v. Aetna, Inc.public domain
Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Christopher Meidl ("Meidl") brings this class action against the defendants, Aetna, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company (collectively, "Aetna"), for denying insurance coverage of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) as a treatment for depression. See generally Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint ("Corr.
D'Iorio v. Winebow, Inc.public domain
*338MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff Janet D’lorio (the “Plaintiff’) commenced this action by filing a Complaint against the Defendant Winebow, Inc. (the “Defendant”). The action sought statutory, in-junctive, and equitable relief relating to the Defendant’s alleged failure to disclose plan doc
763 F.Supp.2d 423 (2011) In re BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: Securities Action, 08 Civ. 2793 Derivative Action, 07 Civ. 10453 ERISA Action, 08 Civ. 2804. No. 08 MDL 1963. United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 19, 2011. *439 Keller Rohrback LLP, by: