Filed: Nov. 08, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 08, 2007 No. 06-15832 THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00110-CV-HLM-4 MICHAEL WALRAVEN, JULIUS VANZANT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (November 8, 2007) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CUR
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 08, 2007 No. 06-15832 THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00110-CV-HLM-4 MICHAEL WALRAVEN, JULIUS VANZANT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (November 8, 2007) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURI..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 08, 2007
No. 06-15832 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00110-CV-HLM-4
MICHAEL WALRAVEN,
JULIUS VANZANT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 8, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Walraven and Julius Vanzant appeal a district court decision
granting summary judgment to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Inc.
(“Goodyear”). Their claims arise out of Goodyear’s decision to sell the operation
of its plant in Cartersville, Georgia, where Walraven and Vanzant were employed.
Walraven and Vanzant brought various claims for relief under § 502(a)(3) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), a claim of ERISA
discrimination under § 510, and a claim of fraud under ERISA §§ 502 and 510.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodyear on all claims.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, and having had the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the basis of the district
court’s well-reasoned order of October 6, 2006.
AFFIRMED.
2