Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Re: Jimmie V. Giles v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Nfl Player Retirement

United States District Court District Of Maryland


May 14, 2013

RE: JIMMIE V. GILES
v.
BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge

Ellen Lipton Hollander District Court Judge

Chambers of 101 West Lombard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 410-962-0742

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL

Dear Counsel:

I am in receipt of Mr. Hogan's letter dated May 13, 2013, captioned as a "Request to Reopen Case." I have directed the Clerk to docket Mr. Hogan's letter, with its attachments. See ECF 52.

As you know, by way of a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 21, 2012 (ECF 49 & 50), I denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and remanded this matter to the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan for reconsideration in light of the Memorandum Opinion. I observed that, pursuant to Dickens v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 677 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2012), the Court would retain jurisdiction to consider a later challenge by either party to the Retirement Board's determination on remand, andstated that the denial of the motions was "without prejudice to the submission of new motions following the Retirement Board's determination on remand." ECF 49 at 39. In addition, I directed that the case be stayed and administratively closed, pending the result of the proceedings on remand.

In his letter, Mr. Hogan advises that, on remand, the Retirement Board again denied Mr. Giles's application for "Football Degenerative" total and permanent disability benefits. Moreover, Mr. Hogan states that plaintiff "believes that this determination is contrary to the holdings of [my] Memorandum Opinion; [and] that the determination is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the Retirement Board's discretion."

I will construe Mr. Hogan's letter (ECF 52) as a motion to reopen the case and lift the stay, and will grant it. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Mr. Hogan's letter of May 13, 2013 (ECF 52), construed as a motion to reopen the case and lift the stay, is GRANTED. Therefore, the stay imposed by the Court's Order entered November 21, 2012 (ECF 50) is LIFTED, and the Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case; and

2. Counsel for the parties shall confer and submit, within 21 days after this Order is docketed, a joint status report which shall include: (1) a proposed briefing schedule for renewed motions; (2) whether the parties request referral for a settlement conference to be conducted by a United States Magistrate Judge; and/or (3) any other matters that require the Court's attention.

Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it as such.

Very truly yours,

20130514

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.