Toledo Newspaper Unions - Blade Pension Trust Fund v. Federal Insurance Company

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0214n.06
Filed: March 19, 2009
No. 08-3442
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TOLEDO NEWSPAPER UNIONS – BLADE
PENSION TRUST FUND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: NORRIS, COOK, GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Toledo Newspaper Unions – Blade Pension Trust
Fund (the “Plan”) appeals the district court’s judgment granting defendant-appellee Federal
Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss. Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) issued a policy
insuring the Plan’s trustees. The Plan sued Federal under the Declaratory Judgment Act, requesting
that the district court make two informative rulings: (1) whether the Plan should notify its
participants of possible claims against certain trustees and (2) whether, if the Plan so notifies its
participants and if the participants sue, there would be coverage under the policy. Relying on the
advisory-opinion prohibition and the ripeness doctrine, the district court dismissed the Plan’s
complaint as failing to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-3442
Toledo Newspaper Unions v. Federal Insurance Company
- 2 -
We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s justiciability determinations, including its
advisory opinion and ripeness assessments. See Eaton v. Charter Twp. of Emmett, No. 06–1542,
2008 WL 780751, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2008) (citing Ammex, Inc. v. Cox, 351 F.3d 697, 706 (6th
Cir.2003)); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Co., Tenn., 274
F.3d 377, 398 (6th Cir. 2001). To the extent that the district court’s jurisdictional ruling rests on
factual findings, we review those findings for clear error. RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.
Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1135 (6th Cir.1996).
Our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs convinces us that the
district court judge’s memorandum opinion carefully and correctly set out the facts and the governing
law, and because a full opinion from this court would be duplicative, we affirm the district court’s
judgment granting defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the district
court’s February 28, 2008 memorandum.

-- 2 of 2 --