Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02095/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2095

___________

JOHN MORRISON

v.

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON;

THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP AND AFFILIATES 

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN

THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP AND AFFILIATES 

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

 Appellant

___________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-00804)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

___________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 13, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

___________________________JUDGMENT ORDER__________________________

The motion to dismiss is granted since the District Court’s order remanding this matter is 

not a final order. As we have stated in Stevens v. Santander Holdings, Inc., 799 F.3d 290, 

300 (3d Cir. 2015), “this Court generally will consider remands to ERISA plan 

administrators nonfinal because, in the ordinary case, they contemplate that the plan 

administrator will engage in further proceedings.” Further, a remand order generally 

“include[es] a reservation of the court’s jurisdiction over the case so that, after a 

determination by the administrator on remand, either party may seek to reopen the district 

court proceedings and obtain a final judgment.” Id. Nothing in the District Court’s order 

Case: 15-2095 Document: 003112424686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2016
remanding this matter and directing the plan administrator to reevaluate whether 

Morrison is disabled provides any reason to vary from our general practice.

The request for attorney’s fees is denied, since we do not find that, by filing the notice of 

appeal, Appellant’s counsel “multiplie[d] the proceeding in [this] case unreasonably or 

vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We note that the notice of appeal was filed before our 

decision in Stevens was issued, and Appellant’s opposition to the motion to dismiss falls 

within the bounds of zealous advocacy expected of counsel. Nonetheless, costs shall be 

taxed against Appellant. 

By the Court,

s/Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. 

Circuit Judge

Attest:

s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: October 3, 2016

Case: 15-2095 Document: 003112424686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2016