1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

STEPHEN G. LINGIS, DONALD L. SMITH 

and PETER D. WHITE, on Behalf of 

Themselves and a Class of Persons Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MOTOROLA, INC., DAVID 

DEVONSHIRE, THE PROFIT SHARING 

COMMITTEE OF MOTOROLA, INC., 

RICK DORAZIL, CHRISTOPHER B. 

GALVIN, ROBERT L. GROWNEY, 

RONNIE C. CHAN, H. LAURANCE 

FULLER, ANNE P. JONES, DONALD R. 

JONES, JUDY C. LEWENT, WALTER E. 

MASSEY, NICHOLAS NEGROPONTE, 

JOHN E. PEPPER, JR., SAMUEL C. 

SCOTT III, GARY L. TOOKER, B. 

KENNETH WEST, JOHN A. WHITE and 

CARL F. KOENEMANN, 

Defendants. 

X

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

X

 

No. 03 C 5044 

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ DOCKETING STATEMENT

Plaintiffs-Appellants Stephen G. Lingis, Donald L. Smith, Peter D. White and Bruce G. 

Howell respectfully submit this Docketing Statement pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(c)(1). 

JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs alleged below violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 

as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged in substance that Motorola, Inc. and other 

fiduciaries of Motorola’s 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the Motorola, Inc. 401(k) 

Profit Sharing Plan) breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by misrepresenting or concealing 

from the Plan’s participants important information concerning over two billion dollars of vendor 

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 452 Filed 07/14/09 Page 1 of 5
2 

financing which Motorola had extended to a Turkish telecommunications company commonly 

known as “Telsim,” and by allowing the participants to invest their retirements savings in Motorola 

stock while the risk of massive losses to Motorola resulting from its dealings with Telsim remained 

misrepresented or concealed. The district court had original jurisdiction of this ERISA civil action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT

This Court has jurisdiction because on June 17, 2009, the district court granted Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment and entered Judgment in favor of Defendants. This was a final 

decision of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and this Court has appellate jurisdiction under 

that provision. The date of entry of the Judgment appealed from is June 17, 2009. Notice of Appeal 

was timely filed on July 14, 2009. There has been no motion filed in the district court for a new trial 

or alteration of judgment or any other motion claimed to toll the time within which to appeal. 

PRIOR AND OTHER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

There have been four prior appeals in this case: 

1. In No. 05-4141, original Plaintiff Bruce G. Howell appealed the dismissal of 

his Complaint, which dismissal was based on the ground of release. On 

March 19, 2007, this Court dismissed that appeal for lack of finality. 

2. In No. 06-3413, Plaintiff Howell sought to appeal the district court’s denial 

of a motion to intervene which had been filed by one John Endsley, a former 

participant in Motorola’s 401(k) plan. This Court dismissed that appeal for 

lack of standing on November 20, 2006. 

3. After this Court dismissed Howell’s initial appeal for lack of finality, 

Defendants moved for entry of a final partial judgment pursuant to Fed R. 

Civ. P. 54(b) against Howell on his individual claims. The district court 

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 452 Filed 07/14/09 Page 2 of 5
3 

granted the motion and Howell subsequently filed a notice of appeal. That 

appeal is No. 07-3837, which was consolidated for briefing and argument 

with Appeal No. 08-1696, which appeal is discussed in the next paragraph. 

4. Appeal No. 08-1696 is Defendants’ appeal from the district court’s grant of 

class certification in this case. This Court granted Defendants’ petition 

brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) for interlocutory review of the district 

court’s class certification ruling. 

 On June 25, 2009, shortly after this Court was advised of the lower court’s grant of summary 

judgment to Defendants, this Court ordered the dismissal of Appeal No. 08-1696 and stayed 

issuance of a decision in No. 07-3837 pending this appeal. 

 Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(c)(1), Appellants, in what they believe to be an excess of caution, 

advise this Court that Appeal No. 09-1750 involves certain parties in common with this case and a 

common subject matter (Motorola’s dealings with Telsim). Appeal No. 09-1750, however, is not 

related to this appeal. It appears that in No. 09-1750, the Motorola, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan 

is appealing from an order denying the Plan’s claim to a settlement fund created in In Re: Motorola 

Securities Litigation, 03 C 287 (N.D. Ill.), a settled class action brought under the PSLRA relating 

generally to Motorola’s public statements about its dealings with Telsim. Since that appeal appears 

to turn on the language of the settlement agreement in In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, that 

appeal raises no issues common to this appeal. 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

 The issues presented on this appeal are whether, based on the summary judgment record 

below and under the applicable law, the district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 452 Filed 07/14/09 Page 3 of 5
4 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 This Court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Buckley Dement, 

Inc. v. Travelers Plan Administrators, 39 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1994). Similarly, this Court 

reviews the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment de novo. Guzman v. 

Sheahan, 495 F.3d 852, 856 (7th Cir. 2007). The district court’s legal conclusions are also reviewed 

de novo. United States v. Whited, 539 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). In that connection, Plaintiffs 

point out that this Court should review de novo the district court’s legal conclusion that Section 

404(c) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c), provides a complete defense to a claim of imprudent 

selection of investment options in a 401(k) plan. See Document 448 at 22-24. This Court recently 

declined to decide that issue. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 589 (7th Cir. 2009). 

COUNSEL OF RECORD

The counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellants on this appeal is: 

Edwin J. Mills, Esq. 

Stull, Stull & Brody 

6 East 45th Street 

New York, NY 10017 

(212) 687-7230 

 Fax: 212-490-2022 

 emills@ssbny.com 

Dated: July 14, 2009 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/Edwin J. Mills 

STULL, STULL & BRODY

Edwin J. Mills 

6 East 45th Street 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (212) 687-7230 

Fax: (212) 490-2022 

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 452 Filed 07/14/09 Page 4 of 5
5 

ROBERT D. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES

Robert D. Allison 

122 South Michigan Avenue 

Suite 1850 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 427-7600 

Firm I.D. No. 36749 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 452 Filed 07/14/09 Page 5 of 5