Legal Opinion
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bayer Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 6, 2005No. 04 Civ.5132(MGC)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Eastman Kodak Company (“Eastman Kodak”) and Martin M. Coyne move for summary judgment on the issue of whether Coyne has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing this action for supplemental pension benefits. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are not contested for the purposes of the present motion. Martin Coyne began working for Sterling Drug Inc. (“Sterling”) in 1981. Shortly thereafter, Coyne subscribed to a Supplemental Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) — a so-called “top-hat”…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Marc Andrew Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Robert E. Muller, Antoinette I. Muller v. First Unum Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- Pens. Plan Guide P 23915h John L. Kemmerer James H. Jordan, in No. 95-1071 v. Ici Americas Inc. John L. Kemmerer James H. Jordan v. Ici Americas Inc., in No. 95-1098Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Anthony Celardo v. Gny Automobile Dealers Health & Welfare Trust, Preferred Choice Management Systems, Inc., D/B/A Magna CareCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bayer Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Eastman Kodak Company v. Stwb, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006