Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David B. Rosenbaum, Atty. No. 009819 Dawn L. Dauphine, Atty. No. 010833 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Telephone: (602) 640-9000 [email protected] [email protected] Michael L. Banks, Pro Hac Vice Azeez Hayne, Pro Hac Vice MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 [email protected] [email protected] Howard Shapiro, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112-4017 Telephone: (504) 310-4088 [email protected] Amy Covert, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 274-3258 [email protected]

Christopher Landau, P.C., Pro Hac Vice Craig S. Primis, P.C., Pro Hac Vice Eleanor R. Barrett, Pro Hac Vice KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-5793 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR DENIAL OR CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER FRCP 56(F)

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 371

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants hereby request a denial or continuance of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). The parties filed simultaneous motions for summary judgment on the statute of limitations. As explained more fully in defendants' motion (Docket #340) and their opposition to plaintiffs' motion (filed concurrently herewith), defendants are entitled to summary judgment because communications distributed to plaintiffs in 1984, more than twenty years before plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, put plaintiffs on notice of their claims. Plaintiffs' three remaining claims are therefore time-barred as a matter of law. If the Court elects not to grant defendants' motion, however, and does not deny plaintiffs' motion simply because plaintiffs have not established any basis for dismissing defendants' statute of limitations defense, defendants request that the Court also deny or continue plaintiffs' summary judgment motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Rule 56(f) authorizes courts to refuse summary judgment, "order a continuance to enable ... depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken," or "issue any other just order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). "[A] district court should continue a summary judgment motion upon a good faith showing by affidavit that the continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to preclude summary judgment." Cal. ex rel. Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The specific issues as to which defendants wish to take discovery are set forth in the Declaration of Eleanor R. Barrett, filed concurrently with this request. These issues, which are also specified in defendants' Renewed Motion for Questionnaire (Docket #342), include whether class members received planwide communications distributed in 1995; which class members participated in the presentations, meetings, and seminars that Honeywell's predecessor company held to address employee concerns on the SBA offset; which class members consulted with attorneys outside the applicable limitations period; which class members received individual benefit statements; and which class members received other benefits estimates. Defendants believe that the Court can grant defendants' motion (and deny plaintiffs' motion) based on the planwide communications
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 371 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

already in the record. But should the Court disagree, defendants will need to investigate these issues to show that plaintiffs' claims accrued outside the applicable limitations period. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request this Court to deny plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations defense. In the alternative, defendants respectfully request this Court to grant defendants' request for a denial or continuance of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(f). Respectfully submitted this 11th day of January, 2008. OSBORN MALEDON By: /s/David B. Rosenbaum David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Michael L. Banks Azeez Hayne MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Howard Shapiro PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112-4017 Amy Covert PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Christopher Landau, P.C. Craig S. Primis, P.C. Eleanor R. Barrett KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-5793 Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 371

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do certify that on January 11, 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 371 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 4

Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants.

s/Kelly Dourlein