Derichs v. AT&T Services, Inc.

Derichs v. AT&T Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Daniel T. Derichs
Defendant:	AT&T Services, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2016cv02346
Filed:	May 27, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office:	Kansas City Office
County:	Johnson
Presiding Judge:	John W. Lungstrum
Nature of Suit:	Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1132
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 24, 2018	Filing 48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that 41 Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees ) is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. Specifically, the Court awards plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $3,175.00, represe nting fees incurred relating to the particular issue of interpretation resolved by the Court. Plaintiff's request for additional fees is denied without prejudice, which request may be renewed as appropriate when plaintiff's claim for benefits has been finally resolved. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 08/24/2018. (ses)
May 9, 2018	Filing 39 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 16 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; and granting in part 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as set forth in this order, and plaintiff's claim for benefits in this case is hereby remanded for a new determination by the claims administrator in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the benefits plan.. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 05/09/2018. (ses)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 24, 2018

Filing 48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that 41 Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees ) is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. Specifically, the Court awards plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $3,175.00, represe nting fees incurred relating to the particular issue of interpretation resolved by the Court. Plaintiff's request for additional fees is denied without prejudice, which request may be renewed as appropriate when plaintiff's claim for benefits has been finally resolved. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 08/24/2018. (ses)

May 9, 2018

Filing 39 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 16 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; and granting in part 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as set forth in this order, and plaintiff's claim for benefits in this case is hereby remanded for a new determination by the claims administrator in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the benefits plan.. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 05/09/2018. (ses)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Derichs v. AT&T Services, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel T. Derichs
Represented By:	Roger M. Driskill
Represented By:	Kyle Henry Sciolaro
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: AT&T Services, Inc.
Represented By:	Kyle A. Kitson
Represented By:	Jason N.W. Plowman
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?