Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-22-2008 Haesler v. Ciba Self Medication Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4275

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Haesler v. Ciba Self Medication" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1546. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1546

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-4275

FREDERICK HAESLER, JR.; SANDREENA; WANDA BREWSTER; TERESA TALESE; JANET THOMAS, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. NOVARTIS CONSUMER HEALTH, INC. ; CIBASELF-MEDICATION FT. WASHINGTON HOURLY EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN a/k/a Novartis Corporation Fort Washington Hourly Employees’ Pension Plan,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00372) District Judge: Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

Argued February 8, 2008 Before: MCKEE, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 22, 2008) Kent Cprek, Esquire (Argued) Jennings Sigmond, Esquire Walnut Street The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683 Counsel for Appellants Christopher G. FitzPatrick, Esquire Paul L. Kattas, Esquire Kelley, Drye & Warren Kimball Drive Parsippany, NJ 07054 Charles B. Wolf, Esquire (Argued) Philip L. Mowery, Esquire Alixon J. Maki, Esquire Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz North La Salle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Counsel for Appellees

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge Participants in the Novartis Corporation Fort Washington Hourly Employees’ Pension Plan, which is sponsored by Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Our review of the dismissal is plenary. See Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 398 F.3d 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2005).

The Participants allege a plethora of violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461. In a succinct yet thorough opinion, see Haesler v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., No. 05-372 (JAG), 2006 WL 2689830 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2006) (incorporating in part its reasoning in Haesler v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D.N.J. 2006)), the District Court, per Judge Greenaway, explained why the Participants have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and heard oral argument, we essentially agree with Judge Greenaway’s reasoning. We accordingly affirm.