HILL v. BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN et al
| LAVONA HILL |
| BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN and RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE BERT BELL NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN |
| 2:2009cv04051 |
| September 4, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Delaware |
| BERLE M. SCHILLER |
| None |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN AND THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN ON ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM. WITH RESPECT TO THE NFL DEFENDANTS INTERPLEADER COMPLAINT, THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF LAVONA HILL. LAVONA HILL IS ENTITLED TO THE INTERPLED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,700 AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT FUTURE BENEFITS UNDER THE PLAN AS THE SURVIVING SP OUSE OF THOMAS SULLIVAN. THIS COURT TAKES NO POSITION ON WHETHER HILL IS ENTITLED TO ANY PAST BENEFITS FROM BARBARA SULLIVAN. THE NFL DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT EVIDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (DOC. 25) IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE STATISTICALLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/4/10. 11/5/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(rf, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
