Petralia v. AT&T Global
This text of Petralia v. AT&T Global (Petralia v. AT&T Global) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Petralia v. AT&T Global, (1st Cir. 1997).
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2007
ROSEMARY PETRALIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AT&T GLOBAL INFORMATION SOLUTIONS COMPANY,
ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants - Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Bownes and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges, _____________________
and Keeton,* District Judge. ______________
_____________________
James A. Fuller for appellant. _______________
John A. Houlihan, with whom Edwards & Angell was on brief _________________ ________________
for appellees.
____________________
June 12, 1997
____________________
____________________
* Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
KEETON, District Judge. In this proceeding we conclude KEETON, District Judge ______________
that the remand order of the district court is not immediately
appealable as a final judgment, and that the collateral order
exception to the final judgment rule does not apply.
Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
I. Background I. Background
The case before us arose from the termination of the
short-term disability benefits of the Plaintiff-Appellant,
Rosemary Petralia, by the Defendants-Appellees, AT&T Global
Information Solutions Company ("AT&T"), and The Employee and
Group Benefit Plan for Account Managers and Sales Representatives
for the Systemedia Division ("the plan").
Plaintiff-Appellant sought review of the termination in
the district court. The district court granted summary judgment,
in part, in favor of Petralia. Specifically, the district court
found that the termination notice Defendants-Appellees provided
to Petralia did not comply with requirements of the Employee
Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461
("ERISA"). The notice failed to inform Petralia of her right to
appeal the termination, and it failed to inform her of what
additional information she could provide to avoid termination.
The district court determined that the proper remedy for the
ERISA violations was to remand the issue of Petralia's continued
eligibility for short-term benefits to the plan fiduciary.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
-2-
Defendants-Appellees on the issue of long-term disability
benefits. Since eligibility for long-term benefits is contingent
upon exhaustion of short-term benefits, and the Defendants-
Appellees terminated the Plaintiff-Appellant's short-term
benefits before she exhausted them, the Plaintiff-Appellant has
not applied for, and the Defendants-Appellees have not denied,
long-term benefits. Plaintiff-Appellant requests that this court
vacate the remand order of the district court, and use its
equitable powers to reinstate the Appellant to the plan
retroactively and to award past and future long-term disability
benefits to the Appellant.
II. Appellate Jurisdiction II. Appellate Jurisdiction
Before we inquire into the merits of a dispute, we must
address the question of appellate jurisdiction. Doughty v. _______
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (In re Wallis), 6 F.3d 856, 860 _______________________________________________
(1st Cir. 1993). There is a "bedrock requirement that
jurisdiction can never be assumed but must be premised on some
affirmative source." Id. ___
Generally, appellate jurisdiction is limited to review
of final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. 1291; see ___
Massachusetts v. V & M Management, Inc., 929 F.2d 830, 833 (1st _____________ _______________________
Cir. 1991)(per curiam).
A "collateral order" may be immediately appealable,
however, if it has certain prescribed characteristics. Cohen v. _____
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) (immediate ____________________________
-3-
appeal is proper if the decision of the district court "appears
to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of
right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the
action, too important to be denied review and too independent of
the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be
deferred until the whole case is adjudicated").
"[A]n order or judgment is usually considered 'final'
(hence, appealable) only when it resolves the contested matter,
leaving nothing to be done except execution of the judgment. A
corollary rule is that an order remanding a matter to an
administrative agency for further findings and proceedings is not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp.
379 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States
489 U.S. 794 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
6 F.3d 856 (First Circuit, 1993)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. V & M Management, Inc.
929 F.2d 830 (First Circuit, 1991)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Petralia v. AT&T Global, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petralia-v-att-global-ca1-1997.