Rose v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.

331 F. App'x 388
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 2009
Docket08-3508
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 331 F. App'x 388 (Rose v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rose v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., 331 F. App'x 388 (6th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. appeals from the March 17, 2008, 542 F.Supp.2d 751, summary judgment order of the district court, enjoining Volvo to continue providing fully-funded life insurance benefits to plaintiffs-appellees Isaac Rose and a certified class of similarly situated retirees, and to continue providing fully-funded health care insurance benefits to the class member retirees and eligible spouses and dependents.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record *389 on appeal, the arguments advanced by the parties in their briefs, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff class members. In our opinion, Volvo’s core arguments are satisfactorily and properly answered within the four corners of the district court’s ruling. Insofar as Volvo now asserts arguments not first addressed to the district court, they are not properly before us and, in any event, are insufficient on their merits to undermine the integrity of the district court’s analysis. Because we conclude that the reasoning which supports award of judgment to the plaintiff class members has been correctly articulated by the district court, issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is, upon the reasoning employed in its opinion dated March 17, 2008, hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. Rose
176 L. Ed. 2d 180 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. App'x 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-volvo-construction-equipment-north-america-inc-ca6-2009.