Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03340/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FI L ED 

Unirt:<l States Court of Appeals 

Tenth C!rcuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL 2 a 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CAROLYN ROSILE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a ) 

Connecticut corporation; THE BOEING ) 

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; THE ) 

BOEING EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, ) 

also known as Group Life Policy 707, a ) 

legal entity; THE WELFARE BENEFIT PLANS) 

COMMITTEE, the plan administrator for ) 

Group Life Policy 707, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-3340 

(D.C. No. 89-1560-C) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument . 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3340 Document: 010110275119 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 1
In this action commenced under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (ERISA), Plaintiff appeals 

the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment on Plaintiff's claims for failure to pay benefits, breach 

of fiduciary duty, and violation of 29 u.s.c. § 1132(c). This 

court reviews a district court's summary judgment decision de 

novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 

938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Summary judgment is 

appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Imposition of a penalty under§ 1132(c) is 

left to the district court's discretion. 29 u.s.c. § 1132(c). 

On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in 

granting Defendants' summary judgment motion on these claims and 

erred in determining that Plaintiff had abandoned a claim asserted 

under 29 U.S.C. § 1106. Upon careful consideration of the record 

and the parties' arguments on appeal, we AFFIRM for substantially 

the reasons stated in the district court's Memorandum and Order 

dated October 2, 1991. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3340 Document: 010110275119 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 2