SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION v. KEY BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
Plaintiff: SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION
Defendant: KEY BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
Case Number: 1:2017cv02457
Filed: July 20, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 399 ORDER Defendant KBA's granting 322 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $54,499.00 ($68,756.50 minus the $14,257.50 disallowed by the Court), plus the reasonable fees expended by KBA on its reply brief in support of the instant motion.12 The parties are directed to confer and attempt to agree upon that additional amount; if they cannot agree, KBA may file a motion seeking those fees within 21 days of the date of this Order. (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/6/2020. (MAC)
April 28, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 382 ORDER - The court has identified numerous genuine issues of material fact, which preclude the entry of summary judgment. Accordingly: 1. SLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 283 , is DENIED. 2. KBA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgmen t, 304 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. SLC's Motion for Leave to File Limited, Four-Page Surreply, 345 , is GRANTED. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties as soon as practicable to discuss the resolution of this matter short of trial. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/28/2020. (JDH)
April 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 379 AMENDED ORDER - The Court finds that: (1) Ms. Smith's knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) her testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (3) her opinion is based on reliable principles and methods; and (4) she has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See Fed R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, the Court DENIES SLC's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Rebekah A. Smith, 357 . (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/17/2020.(JDH) Modified on 4/17/2020 (JDH).
April 15, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 377 ORDER - The Court finds that: (1) Ms. Smith's knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) her testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (3) her opinion is based on reliable principl es and methods; and (4) she has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See Fed R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, the Court DENIES SLC's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Rebekah A. Smit, 357 . (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/15/2020. (JDH)
September 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 282 ORDER denying 258 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production or Identification of Documents and for Leave to Take Limited Testimony on Same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/20/2019. (CBU)
July 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 241 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Court, having considered the Magistrate Judge's R&R, finds it to be well-reasoned and therefore ADOPTS theR&R 237 as an Order of the Court and GRANTS Defendant's Motion 133 as set forth th erein. Defendant may, within fourteen days of this Order, file a motion for fees with supporting documentation as set forth in the R&R. The Court further REFERS any such motion for fees to the Magistrate Judge to conduct any necessary hearings and to issue a report and recommendation regarding its proper disposition. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/19/2019.(JDH)
November 15, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER - Plaintiff Senior Lifestyle Corporation ("SLC") alleges that Defendant Key Benefit Administrators, Inc. ("KBA") breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ("ERISA "). KBA now moves the Court to dismiss part of SLC's Complaint for failure to establish that KBA had a fiduciary duty under ERISA. [Filing No. 35 .] For the reasons in this Order, the Court DENIES KBA's Motion. SLC's Complaint plausibly pleads a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Accordingly, the Court DENIES KBA's Partial Motion to Dismiss. Filing No. 35 . (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/15/2017. (APD)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION v. KEY BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: KEY BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
Represented By: FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP (Indianapolis)
Represented By: Matthew Richard Kinsman
Represented By: Kate E Middleton
Represented By: Sean J Powell
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 ]
Plaintiff: SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION
Represented By: James C. Goodfellow, Jr.
Represented By: Samuel Schwartz-Fenwick
Represented By: Samuel Schwartz-Fenwick
Represented By: Amanda A. Sonneborn
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?