LOW-IACOVINO v. THE BENEFIT PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE NONBARGAINED PRGRAM OF THE AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN et al
||Does, Fidelity Service Center and The Benefit Plan Committee of the Nonbargained Program of the AT and T Pension Benefit Plan
||September 1, 2016
||US District Court for the Central District of California
||Charles F. Eick
|Nature of Suit:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 23, 2018
AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff Lorraine Low-Iacovino, as the surviving spouse of RANDY IACOVINO, deceased, is entitled to receive the Joint and Survivor Annuity pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Se ction 1055 from the date of the death of the decedent, 12/11/2014, and continuing for the rest of her life. Defendants The Benefit Plan Committee of the Nonbargained Program of the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan and Fidelity Services shall calculate and p ay to Plaintiff said annuity as provided by law, regulation and the terms of the Plan. Post-judgment interest, in the amount specified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961, shall be paid on the portion of the award that consists of survivor annuity payments tha t accrued between 12/11/2014 and the date of the Amended Judgment (the "Past Annuity Amount"). The period of time for which post-judgment interest shall accumulate on the Past Annuity Amount shall be the period between the date of this Amen ded Judgment through the date payment is made on the Past Annuity Amount. No pre-judgment interest is awarded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may withhold from the annuity payment to Plaintiff the sum of $5,082.14 as the amount erroneousl y overpaid to the decedent during his lifetime under the ten-per-cent enhancement of benefits in the Management Retirement Opportunity which allowed him to retire at an earlier age than that provided in the Plan and which should have terminated when he attained age 62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall not withhold the sum of $47,064.21, or any other sum, claimed to have been overpaid to the decedent during his lifetime as a result of Defendants having paid him as a single-life annuitant rather than a joint annuitant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allowance and the amount of an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff is deferred and shall be the subject of a separate Order. (gk)
|January 25, 2018
JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Lorraine Low Iacovino, as the surviving spouse of RANDY IACOVINO, deceased, is entitled to receive the Joint and Survivor Annuity pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1 055 from the date of the death of the decedent, December 11, 2014, with interest, and continuing for the rest of her life. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall not withhold the sum of $47,064.21, or any other sum, claimed to have been overpaid to the decedent during his lifetime as a result of defendants having paid him as a single-life annuitant rather than a joint annuitant. MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (See order for further details) (yl)
|December 20, 2017
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court finds that Defendant abused its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's claim. The Court also finds that Defendant is not entitled to offset the $47,064.21 i t overpaid Mr. Iacovino during his lifetime, but is entitled to recover the $5,082.14 it overpaid Mr. Iacovino based on the failure to terminate his 10% increase after he reached age 62. The Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees to allow Defendant an opportunity to present argument on that issue. Defendant shall submit any briefing on the issue within 21 days of the issuance of this order. (gk)
|March 14, 2017
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (196 2) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show caus e, in writing, on or before March 21, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral arg ument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. Defendant Fidelity Service Center did not answer th e complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to correct their request for entry of default (Dkt. 27 ), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. (clee)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?