Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—OO194-CFD Document 28 Filed O2/18/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
)
THOMAS E. TYNDALL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING )
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, ) Case No. 3:03cvl94(CFD)
DAVID W. LAUGHTON, PAUL V. WALSH, )
ANTHONY S. BUONPANE, GEORGE W. )
CASHMAN, J. LEO BARRY, JOHN J. )
MCCARTHY, JR., WILLLAM M. VAUGHN III, )
and J. DAWSON CUNNINGHAM, )
)
Defendants. )
.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COME Defendants, New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry
Pension Fund, et al, and respectfully request leave of Court to file a Supplemental Motion
for Summary Judgment on the remaining issue before this Court. As grounds for their
Motion, Defendants state as follows:
1. On April 29, 2004, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on the issue of whether the Defendants reduction of
Plaintiff Thomas E. Tyndall’s monthly pension benefit altered, modified, or
changed the Plan.
2. The only remaining issue before the Court following its April 29, 2004 Order
granting Defendant’s Motion is whether Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the
lump sum payment of benefits he received in October 2001 following the

Case 3:03-cv—OO194-CFD Document 28 Filed O2/18/2005 Page 2 of 3
granting of his request to change his effective retirement date from February
1995 to August 1990.
3. On December 3, 2004, Plaintiff and Defendants attended a mediation session
before Hon. Thomas P. Smith to attempt to settle the remaining issue of
interest on the lump sum payment, but they were unable to agree on a
mutually acceptable settlement amount.
4. Defendants’ position is that no interest is owed on the lump sum award of
benefits.
5 . There are no material facts in dispute.
6. Recent case law which was decided after the time in which the parties agreed
to submit their initial Motions for Summary Judgment has shed new light on
the issue, specifically Dobson v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 389
F.3d 386 (2nd Cir. 2004), and Campanella v. Mason Tenders ’ District Council
Pension Plan, 299 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y., 2004).
7. As there are no material facts in dispute, Defendants believe they are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, and allowing such a Motion would provide the
Court with the opportunity to decide the case without the need for a trial.
8. Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a Defending Party
to move, at any time, for summary judgment in the Defendant’s favor as to all
or any part thereof.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court allow Defendants to file their
attached Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documents.

Case 3:03-cv—OO194-CFD Document 28 Filed O2/18/2005 Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted,
For the Defendants
By Their Attorneys
Jonathan M. Conti
Federal Bar. No 24593
Feinberg, Campbell & Zack, P.C.
177 Milk Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 338-1976
]`[email protected]
Local counsel,
Thomas M. Brockett
Federal Bar No. ct10873
Robert M. Cheverie & Associates, P.C.
333 East River Drive, Suite 101
East Hartford, CT 06108
(860) 290-9610
wwvv:[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jonathan M. Conti, hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing to be
served on pro se plaintiff Thomas E. Tyndall by depositing a copy thereof by certified
mail with the United States Postal Service on February 11, 2005 addressed to Thomas E.
Tyndall, P.O. Box 6041, Wolcott, CT 06716. E 3
Jonathan M. Conti