Donald Corley v. Commonwealth Industries, Inc. Cash Balance Plan

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0343n.06
Case No. 14-5789
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DONALD CORLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC.
CASH BALANCE PLAN;
COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC.;
and
BENEFITS COMMITTEE FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC.
CASH BALANCE PLAN
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________/
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Throughout this ERISA litigation, Plaintiff Donald Corley
has repeatedly argued that the plain language of his pension-benefits Plan entitles him to a larger
lump-sum pension payment than he actually received. This appeal is the second time this case
has been before our court on this issue. See Fallin v. Commonwealth Indus., Inc., 695 F.3d 512
(6th Cir. 2012). In the first appeal, we held that the Benefits Committee’s interpretation of the

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 14-5789, Corley v. Commonwealth Indus. et al.
- 2 -
Plan’s terms was not arbitrary or capricious. See id. at 516. Corley fully briefed this issue then,
and it is precisely the same argument he raises now. Because we squarely decided the issue in
the first appeal, we hold that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from reconsidering it. See
Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1071 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --