Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV-266-H CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV-267-H CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV-268-H CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV-489-H CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV-498-H MONTY R. FULKERSON;
GERALD LOMAX;
STEPHEN ZIRNHELD;
JANICE FISCHER; and
VIRGINIA E. SMITH PLAINTIFFS V.
SOUTHERN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC.
PENSION PLAN, and
SOUTHERN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion states that Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint to assert: (1) a claim for themselves and all similarly situated individuals for benefits under the pension plan based upon their actual hourly compensation rate; (2) a claim against the Plan Administrator for failure to provide request and information; and (3) to join the Plan Administrator as a party defendant. Plaintiffs have not attached a copy of their proposed amended complaint. The failure to do so makes it difficult for the Court to determine whether the motion is properly taken. Consequently, the Court will make a few comments and request Plaintiffs to file the actual proposed amended complaint along with further explanation.
The Court is inclined to allow an amendment that makes additional allegations. However, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are asserting additional causes of action or the exact nature of them. Once the additional allegations and additional causes of action are properly specified, it would probably be easier to resolve the validity of these claims after filing of the amended complaint.
Currently, Plaintiffs make claims for themselves only. Adding language concerning “others similarly situated” adds nothing to the complaint unless either specific persons are named or a class action is anticipated. No additional persons are named and Plaintiffs have not indicated that a class action is in the offing. Consequently, the Court would be inclined not to allow amendment of the complaint in this manner.
The motion likewise gives insufficient information for the Court to judge precisely the nature of Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment as to the Plan Administrator. It appears that Southern Graphic is already named in its capacity as Plan Administrator. Perhaps this confusion can be ended by Defendants either admitting that Southern Graphic acted as Plan Administrator for the pension plan or by identifying the name of the entity or person who did act in that capacity.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before May 13, 2005 , Southern Graphic shall identify the persons or entities who acted as Plan Administrators under the pension plans at issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before May 27, 2005 , Plaintiffs shall file a proposed amended complaint along with a more specific explanation of the proposed changes. Thereafter, the Court will take the pending motion under submission. Failure to comply will *3 result in denial of the motion.
cc: Counsel of Record