United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Dr. Alan RESNICK and Dr. James Thompson, derivatively, on behalf of the Associated Allergists & Asthma, Ltd. Defined Benefit Pension Plan & Trust; and Associated Allergists & Asthma, Ltd., Plaintiffs,
Dr. Donald SCHWARTZ; Ronald Spitz; and Ronald Spitz and Associates, Inc., Defendants.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Constantine Pontikes, George C. Pontikes & Associates,
P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
G. Krcmar, Damon Newman, John P. Prusik, Quintairos, Prieto,
Wood & Boyer, P.A., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Dr. Donald
D. Harbert, Arsalan Ali Nayani, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Chicago, IL, for Defendants Ronald Spitz, Ronald Spitz and
OPINION AND ORDER
Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge.
years ago, Dr. Donald Schwartz withdrew, in a lump sum, over
$800,000 in benefits from his pension-plan account with
Associated Allergists. R. 29, Corr. Am. Compl. at 3 ¶
2. But he should not have taken a lump
sum: under federal pension-benefits law (known by its
acronym, ERISA), Dr. Schwartz was considered a "highly
compensated" employee, so he was required to take
annuity payments over time instead of a lump-sum payment.
Id. at 3 ¶ 3. Eventually, the Plan's
current fiduciaries, Drs. Alan Resnick and James Thompson,
brought suit against both Dr. Schwartz and the Plan's
then-actuaries, Ronald Spitz and Ronald Spitz and
Associates (collectively the Defendants),
alleging ERISA violations as well as Illinois state claims.
See Corr. Am. Compl. at 12-22.
in the case, both Dr. Schwartz and the Spitz Defendants
independently moved to dismiss the claims against them. R.
32, Spitz's Mot. Dismiss Br.; R. 36-1 Schwartz's Mot.
Dismiss Br. As relevant here, Schwartz argued that the
Plaintiffs' claims were barred by ERISA's three-year
statute of limitations. The Court agreed with Schwartz in
general, but nevertheless denied Schwartz's motion to
dismiss because the fraudulent-concealment exception to
ERISA's statute of limitations might apply. Whether the
exception applied, though, could not be resolved at the
pleading stage, so the Court allowed the parties to take
discovery on that limited issue. After the parties finished
the limited discovery, the Defendants moved for summary
judgment, R. 87, Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., and the Plaintiffs
cross-moved against the limitations defense, R. 89, Pls.'
Mot. Summ. J. For the reasons discussed below, the
Defendants' motion is granted.
Opinion assumes familiarity with the facts described in the
that decided the Defendants' motions to dismiss. R. 61,
9/3/18 Opinion at 2-6; Resnick v. Schwartz, 2018 WL
4191525, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2018). In deciding the
motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Because both parties have both moved for summary judgment,
the Court will consider the ...