Levin, et al v. Raynor, et al - Document 124

Court Description:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #98988 re: 116 MOTION to Substitute Party. Old Party: UNITE HERE and WORKERS UNITED, New Party: UNITE, filed by Ethel Vick, Frank Longo, J. Christopher Keogan, Israel E. Charne, Philip Leviton, Evelyn G. Smith, Joseph G ood, Rinaldo A. Panetta, Barbara Laufman, Fred Kushel, Cornelius Wall, Gerard Levine, Mavous Speegle, John B. Montgomery, Max Wolf, Jose F. Gonzalez, Eugenia Bonanno, Raymond Lee, Seymour Rubinstein, Elvira Franqui, Joseph Giardina, Palma Young, Anne tte Scuito D'Ercole, Delores Tutson, Rosetta Lyons, Joseph Ingegneri, Felicita Vargas, Ruth Feldman, Robert Fontaine, Joseph Delli Carpini, Patricia A. Rains, Marie Vitale, Belle Horenstein, Maria Banta, Albert Josefsberg, Stanley Gross, Enrique ta Andrade, Joseph A. De Angeles, Anita Robbins, Ellen Goodman, Peter Nadash, Lawrence Kahn, Lois Hartel, Suey K. Sang, George Pishko, Joseph Rosa, Mattie J. Jackson, Martin A. Gonzalez, Irwin Solomon, Beverly Shulman, Max Zimny, John Lo Monaco, Juan Muniz, Saul Rosen, Jonathan Vitale, Billy Andrews, Evelyn Dubrow, Karl Blumenthal, Robert H. Hostetter, James D'Arrigo, Jerry Schoen, Maria D'Arrigo, Martin Bader, Harold V. Burkholder, John di Girolamo, Mary McMahon, Louis F. Sharpe, Doug las Levin, Israel Camacho Montalvo, Simon Cooper, Connie Ling, William P. McMahon, Nicholas Roussos, Samuel Eisenberg, Mary Ruggiero, Joseph P. Raia, Yip On Wong, George Levenberg, Gloria Byer, Miriam Micelli, Emanuel Leventhal, Violeta Putterman, Li aping Sciuto, Mildred A. Lippman, Maurice Seller, John B. Fodera, Anthony Lespier, Stanley Leong, Ruth Groenveldt, Salvatore Giardina, Marie Belasco, Sol Goldberg, Corrine D. Watts, Shirley Rose, Nick Trajano, David Wells, Jay Mazur, James R. Goldber g, Jonathan Smalls, Sally Eisenberg, Julius Sippen, Murray Kaner, Earl Laub, Ralph R. Reuter, Robert J. Mitchell, Tomasita Cruz, Linda L. Mitchell, David Ko, Aaron Adler, Luz M. D'Agostino, Frank Rossi, Jr., Carmen O. Finnegan, Burl C. Robinson, Melvin H. Parker, Jack Schlesinger, Bert Obrentz, Joseph Longo, Sr., Israel Berkenwald, Michael F. Grimaldi, Shirley Bernstein, Theodore Bernstein, Thomas B. Mathews, Sidney Gerstein, Nancy Cameron, Clemente Lyons, Robert Pignatelli, Ben Dansavage, Isidore Linzer, Anthony Piccione, Dorothy Ney, Dorothy M. McCormick, Teresa Strianese, Lester Kushner, Norma Pluskie, Anthoney Claudino, Amador Santiago, Samuel Nemaizer, Glenwood Clay, Shelly Appleton, Yvonne Patz. UNITE HERE be substituted for UNIT E as a Defendant in this action. Counsel for current Defendants and counsel for new Defendant UNITE HERE are to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs to coordinate discovery in this action moving forward, including but not limited to, a plan to complete the depositions of Plaintiffs, which may be conducted by telephone, if necessary. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on 5/25/10) Copies sent by chambers.(cd) Modified on 5/26/2010 (ajc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ............................... DOUGLAS LEVIN, et al., Plaintiffs, 4697 (GBD)(THK) , v. MORANDUM AND ORDER BRUCE RAYNOR, et al., ........................ Defendants. .----- ------ .X THEODORE H. KATZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG Plaintiffs in this action, 139 retired off cers and staff of the International Ladies1 Garment Workers1 Un'on ("ILGWU"), or beneficiaries of those individuals, filed th's action in 2003 against ILGWU's successor-in-interest the ~ n i o b Needletrades, , of Industrial & 6. f1 i Textile Employees ("UNITE"),as we1 as UNITE'S Health Benefits Committee, UNITE' s formal and ' n oqal" benefit plans if (the "Plans"), and four individuals who served as fiduciaries of the Plans (collectively, "Defendants"). Plai tiffs allege that t 1 I UNITE1s decision to decrease what Plaintiffs believe was their "vested" life insurance benefit violated, am ng other things, various statutory provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The case has be n referred to this Court for general pretrial supervision.' 1 7 t The case was previously referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation on the parties1 moti ns for partial summary judgment. After the District Court (H n. George B. Daniels) adopted this Court's Report and Recom endation, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant , only Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and estopp 1 remain. See ,. , COT' IES MAILED , ., , rL~~ij,l i I Presently before the Court is a motion substitution of UNITE HERE and Workers Unite , as the alleged successors-in-interest to Defendant UNITE. reasons, the Court grants the motion in part. BACKGROUND The Complaint in this action was filed on I a i" y Plaintiffs for or the following une 25, 2003. On el Employees and ) July 8, 2004, Defendant UNITE merged with the H Restaurant Employees International Union HERE. ( "HE to form UNITE Plaintiffs, however, did not request su itution of UNITE the merger. In HERE as a party in this lawsuit immediately af February 2009, a dispute arose within UNITE HERE between members of the two predecessor unions. As a result, several former UNITE members, some of whom are the individual Defendar,.tsin this action, filed multiple lawsuits in the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarfing the assets of the now-defunct UNITE (the "Gillis Actions") .' n March 21, 2009, a faction of UNITE HERE'S regional joint boardjmembers and three Canadian units officially disaffiliated from UN TE HERE to form a new union, Workers United. In light of this internal dispute a o ! mn attorneys for Defendants in this action have the unions, the P urported to cease Levin v. Ravnor, No. 03 Civ. 4697 (GBD) (THK), 2008 WL 4449457, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008). ' - Gillis v. Wilhelm, No. 09 Civ. See Wilhelm, No. 09 Civ. 1374; Romnev v. 2 representation of UNITE, and the case has effe tively come to a grinding halt. Plaintiffs, therefore, have move this Court for an i I order substituting UNITE HERE and Workers Uni ed for Defendant UNITE, pursuant to Rule 25 (c)(3) of the Feder 1 Rules of Civil Procedure. are the Plaintiffs contend that UNITE HERE nd Workers United without their successors-in-interest to UNITE, aqd + tii presence, the case cannot proceed. Law in Support of Motion for ("Pis.' Mem."), at 6-8.) (See fs' Memorandum of Feb. 8, 2010 The individual Defendants oppose the that the Court stay this action pending Actions, at which time the appropriate assets and liabilities will be known, Workers United (or both) , as the properly substituted as Defendants. tion, and request of the Gillis nment of UNITE'S UNITE HERE or UNITE, can be Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Substitution, d ted Feb. 25, 2010 (Df. 'es' Mem."), at 2-4.) UNITE HERE opposes the I= substitution, arguing that (1) substituting new parties will only exacerbate the parties and create case management untimely.' Further, UNITE HERE Def