In Bazile v. Lucent Technologies, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Lucent wrongfully denied him disability pension benefits under ERISA following his 1995 termination from employment. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court's reasoning was that res judicata barred the claim because a prior lawsuit arising from the same facts about the plaintiff's termination had been resolved against him by the Fifth Circuit, which had upheld his termination for failing to return to work or complete required FMLA forms, and he therefore did not qualify for benefits under the plan.
In this case, plaintiff Fick sued defendant MetLife to recover long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan after MetLife terminated payments, finding she was not disabled under the plan's any-occupation standard due to her back conditions from a 1990 work injury. MetLife filed counterclaims for equitable relief enforcing the plan and unjust enrichment. The parties agreed the case was ripe for decision on the administrative record. The court granted MetLife's motion for summary judgment and denied Fick's, applying ERISA standards of review including de novo and arbitrary-and-capricious analysis with a sliding scale for conflicts of interest, and concluding that the administrator's decision was not wrong or an abuse of discretion.
In Fick v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company to recover long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. The defendant filed counterclaims seeking equitable relief under ERISA to recover overpaid benefits and for unjust enrichment, after the plaintiff received full benefits without offset for social security payments she later received and had agreed to repay. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing it sought legal rather than equitable relief under the Supreme Court's decision in Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson. The court denied the motion, finding the case distinguishable because the overpayments could be traced to specific funds in the plaintiff's possession from social security benefits.
This case involves plaintiff Albert Wall, a former employee of Pennzoil-Quaker States Co., who filed suit under ERISA seeking to reinstate long-term disability benefits that the company and plan administrator MetLife had terminated in 2002 after initially approving them in 1990. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting summary judgment to the defendants on Count I (ERISA benefits) and to Pennzoil on Count II (breach of settlement agreement), while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that review of the benefits denial was limited to the administrative record existing at the time of the final decision, not de novo, and that Pennzoil's determination was reasonable and supported by evidence, including medical evaluations finding Wall capable of sedentary to light work. The court also found no contractual bar preventing termination of benefits upon a showing that disability had ended.
This case involves a class action challenge by Monroe County property owners to Ordinance 004-1997, which restricts certain vacation rental uses of properties. The sole issue addressed in this order is Count X, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is void ab initio for failure to comply with the notice and hearing procedures in Florida Statutes § 125.66 during its enactment. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment, holding that the ordinance was validly enacted. The core reasoning was that the county held the required two advertised public hearings (one after 5 p.m.), published proper notices that adequately described the proposed changes to permitted uses, and that minor revisions across ordinance drafts did not violate the statute because the overall purpose remained consistent and all affected property owners received sufficient notice.
This case is a class action brought by property owners in Monroe County, Florida, challenging Ordinance 004-1997, which restricts the use of properties as vacation rentals; the claims include allegations of premature enforcement before final state court approval, facial and as-applied takings under the Fifth Amendment and Florida Constitution, violations of due process, and that the ordinance was void ab initio for failing to comply with state enactment procedures under Fla. Stat. § 125.66. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment as to Counts I, II, V–X, and others, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations in part. The court held that the federal takings claims were not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiffs had not exhausted available state remedies as required by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, and it found abstention appropriate on the declaratory judgment claims involving unsettled questions of state land-use law. The reasoning relied on established ripeness standards, the need for full exhaustion of state procedures before federal review, and the tradition of leaving land-use disputes primarily to state and local resolution.