Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration and Clarification 17 and Alternative Motion To Allow Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. #79). Defendants challenge 18 the portion of the Court's March 31, 2005 Order (Doc. #71) and subsequent opinion (Doc. 19 #77) granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs for its claims brought under ERISA 20 § 204(g) ("anti-cutback claims"). 21 Defendants move for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 60(b) based on (1) the Court's legal error in following a Ninth Circuit decision that 23 Defendants claim is distinguishable, and (2) the enactment of new regulations interpreting 24 section 204(g). 25 On August 22, 2005, Defendant filed a notice of new authority with Court (Doc. #80), 26 which included the recently enacted regulations interpreting section 204(g). The Court 27 ordered supplemental briefing by both parties on the impact of these Regulations (Doc. #83). 28
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 124 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) H O N E Y W E L L R E T I R E M E N T) ) EARNINGS PLAN, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) BARBARA ALLEN, et al.,

No. 04­0424 PHX-ROS ORDER

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

On September 30, 2005, Defendants filed an additional notice of new authority with the Court (Doc. #107), which included a district court opinion considered persuasive authority on the issue of adopting an agency's interpretation despite contrary court precedent. On October 26, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on the issue of whether the Regulations apply, and also whether, upon issuance of a decision on this issue, the case should be certified for interlocutory appeal. Having read the briefing submitted by the parties and considered the arguments on the issue, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #79) and grant Defendants' Alternative Motion To Certify For Interlocutory Appeal. An opinion will follow.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #79) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Alternative Motion For Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. #79) is GRANTED. DATED this 28th day of October, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 124 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 2 of 2