John Pergosky v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 04-1855
JOHN PERGOSKY,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY;
RETIREMENT PLAN OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-06549
District Judge: Honorable Franklin S. Van Antwerpen
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 8, 2005
BEFORE: NYGAARD, McKEE & RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 25, 2005)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff employee asks us to review the District Court’s grant of the employer’s
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit for employee benefits under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We will affirm.
Inasmuch as we are writing only for the parties we need not set forth the
background of this dispute except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion. The

-- 1 of 2 --

2
District Court concluded that the instant suit was barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel based upon plaintiff’s prior suit against the defendant under the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act and the settlement agreement that terminated that
litigation. The District Court has filed a very thoughtful and thorough Memorandum and
Order dated March 2, 2004, wherein the court explains why the doctrine of collateral
estoppel precludes defendant from raising the instant claims. We will affirm the District
Court’s dismissal substantially for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order.

-- 2 of 2 --