Isaac Rose v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0555n.06
No. 08-3508
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC ROSE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
BEFORE: GILMAN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and SARGUS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Defendant-appellant Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.
appeals from the March 17, 2008 summary judgment order of the district court, enjoining Volvo to
continue providing fully-funded life insurance benefits to plaintiffs-appellees Isaac Rose and a
certified class of similarly situated retirees, and to continue providing fully-funded life insurance
benefits to the class member retirees and eligible spouses and dependents.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on
appeal, the arguments advanced by the parties in their briefs, and the applicable law, we are not
persuaded that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff class members.
_________________________
*Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-3508
Rose et al. v. Volvo Constr. Equipment N. Am., Inc.
- 2 -
In our opinion, Volvo’s core arguments are satisfactorily and properly answered within the four
corners of the district court’s ruling. Insofar as Volvo now asserts arguments not first addressed to
the district court, they are not properly before us and, in any event, are insufficient on their merits
to undermine the integrity of the district court’s analysis. Because we conclude that the reasoning
which supports award of judgment to the plaintiff class members has been correctly articulated by
the district court, issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve
no useful purpose.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is, upon the reasoning employed in its opinion
dated March 17, 2008, hereby AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --