McDowell, et al. v. Price, et al., No. 12-3716 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against their former employer and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. After the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommended dispositions, plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs have failed to set forth sufficient evidence to show that they were due more in benefits and penalties than the amount that the district court determined that they were owed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their requests for nonmonetary relief or in determining the reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - ERISA. Claims that the district court mismanaged discovery and erred in denying certain pretrial motions are rejected, as the magistrate judges who managed the case did not abuse their discretion in ruling on the motions or in managing the discovery process; district court did not err in calculating plaintiffs' damages under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(c); nor did the court err in calculating the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.