UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

STEVE BRACKETT, KEVIN MURPHY, 

DARIUSZ KEPCZYNSKI and BRUCE 

HARVEY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-10048 

v. 

 Hon. Denise Page Hood 

SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE Corp., a 

Delaware corporation, SIEMENS VDO CORP., 

a foreign corporation, now known as CONTINENTAL 

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC., 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

OGNE ALBERTS & STUART 

By: Dennis D. Alberts (P26348) 

Michael A. Ross (P45266) 

1869 E. Maple Road 

Troy, MI 48083 

248/362-3707 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Email: dalberts@oaspc.com

 mross@oaspc.com

 

BUTZEL LONG

By: Mark T. Nelson (P27305) 

James J. Boutrous II (P53710) 

150 West Jefferson, Ste. 100 

Detroit, MI 48226 

313/225-7000 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Email: nelsonm@butzel.com

 boutrous@butzel.com

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation (now known as Continental 

Automotive Systems US, Inc.), Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. and Siemens VDO 

Corporation (an entity that does not exist)1, by Butzel Long, their attorneys, respond to Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, as follows: 

 

1 Defendants are unaware of any corporate entity called or incorporated as Siemens VDO 

Corporation. Further, the name of Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation was changed to 

Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. on or about December 3, 2007. 
2

GENERAL AND JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 

2. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 

3. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 

4. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 

5. Defendants admit that Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation is a Delaware 

Corporation, is licensed to do business in Michigan and does conduct business in the State of 

Michigan. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 

6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. In support of their 

denial, Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs were employed by Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation and were at-will employees. 

7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. In support of their 

denial, Defendants state that Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation employees, including 

Plaintiffs, worked at Siemens VDO Automotive Canada, Inc. 

8. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 

9. Paragraph 9 is the legal conclusions of the pleader and no response is required. 
3

10. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. In support of their 

denial, Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs were employed by Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation and were at-will employees. 

11. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. In support of their 

denial, Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiffs were employed by Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation and were at-will employees. 

12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. In support of their 

denial, Defendants state that Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation and Siemens VDO 

Automotive Canada, Inc. had business units called Powertrain Air Fuel (P AF Segment). 

13. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. In support of their 

denial, Defendants state that when P AF Segment business unit was sold to Mahle Industries, 

Inc., Plaintiffs Brackett, Murphy and Kepczynski accepted comparable employment at Mahle 

Industries, Inc. and, as a result, their employment with Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation 

ended. Plaintiff Harvey’s employment ended with his retirement from Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation effective March 31, 2007. 

14. Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs were employed by Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation, were at-will employees and did receive whatever benefits that each 

was entitled to receive at the time of the sale to Mahle Industries, Inc. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14 and specifically deny that Plaintiffs were 

entitled to severance benefits. 

15. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15. 

16. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 
4

17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 

COUNT I

Defendants repeat their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein. 

18. Paragraph 18 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that it contains any factual allegations, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 18 except that Defendants admit that they possess a copy of the 

Severance Pay Plan (effective January 2, 2002). 

19. Paragraph 19 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that it contains any factual allegations, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 19. 

20. Paragraph 20 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that it contains any factual allegations, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 20. 

21. Paragraph 21 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that it contains any factual allegations, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 21. 

22. Paragraph 22 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that it contains any factual allegations, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 22. 

23. Paragraph 23 is the legal conclusions of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. In addition, the Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation Severance Pay Plan is the best 

evidence of its content and the pleaders’ attempt to paraphrase or summarize its content is 

denied. Defendants also deny any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 
5

24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. 

25. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 25. 

26. Defendants deny the allegation contained in Paragraph 26. 

27. Defendants deny the allegation contained in Paragraph 27. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Count I be dismissed with prejudice or, in the 

alternative, that a judgment of no cause for action be entered in favor of Defendants and against 

Plaintiffs with costs and attorney fees to be taxed. 

COUNT II

Defendants repeat their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein. 

28. Paragraph 28 is the legal conclusion of the pleader and, thus, no response is 

required. To the extent that Paragraph 28 contains factual allegations alleging that Defendants 

violated or breached any duty, Defendants deny any such allegation. 

29. Defendants do not contest the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under ERISA. 

30. Defendants admit that each Plaintiff was a participant in the Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation Severance Pay Plan, by virtue of their employment with Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corporation. Defendants deny any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 

31. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 

32. Defendants admit that Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation is a fiduciary of 

the Severance Pay Plan and that the Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation Severance Pay Plan 

Committee is the administrator of the Severance Pay Plan. Defendants deny any remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 

33. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 
6

34. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 

35. Defendants admit that no benefits under the Severance Pay Plan were paid to 

Plaintiffs. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 

36. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. 

37. Defendants admit only such duty as set forth in the Severance Pay Plan and as set 

forth in ERISA. Defendants deny any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 37. 

38. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Count II be dismissed with prejudice or, in the 

alternative, that a judgment of no cause for action be entered in favor of Defendants and against 

Plaintiffs with costs and attorneys fees taxed as permitted by ERISA. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action. 

2. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim is preempted under the provisions of ERISA, 

29 U.S.C. § 1144. 

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for their failure to exhaust the administrative 

remedies set forth in the Severance Pay Plan. 

4. Plaintiff Harvey’s claim is barred by his decision to voluntarily retire from 

Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation effective March 31, 2007. 

5. The claims of Plaintiffs Brackett, Murphy and Kepczynski are barred, upon 

information and belief, by their acceptance of an offer of substantially comparable employment 

with Mahle Industries, Inc. on or about May 31, 2007. 
7

6. Plaintiffs have no right to a jury trial under ERISA and the demand for a jury trial 

should be stricken. 

7. Defendants reserve the right to supplement or revise their affirmative defenses 

during the course of discovery in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with 

prejudice, or, in the alternative, a judgment of no cause for action be entered in favor of 

Defendants and against Plaintiffs with costs and attorney fees to be taxed as permitted by law. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/Mark T. Nelson (P27305) 

 s/James J. Boutrous II (P53710) 

 BUTZEL LONG 

 150 West Jefferson, Ste. 100 

 Detroit, MI 48226 

 313/225-7000 

 E-mail: nelsonm@butzel.com

Dated: January 12, 2009 boutrous@butzel.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 12, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper and 

Certificate of Service with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. 

 s/Mark T. Nelson (P27305) 

 BUTZEL LONG 

 150 West Jefferson, Ste. 100 

 Detroit, MI 48226-4450 

 313/225-7000 

 E-mail: nelsonm@butzel.com

1048907.1