Appellants filed a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court’s decision to remand this case to a California state court. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that no ERISA plan existed and therefore that state law claims related to a particular plan were not preempted. The plan granted little to no discretion for the plan administrator in determining severance pay. The only modicum of discretion vested in the plan’s administrators was whether an employee was terminated for cause. That, however, was not enough to transform the plan into an ERISA plan. The California litigation attorney made a motion to protect the party’s interest.
The bankruptcy court’s judgment was affirmed.
In an action in which a closed-circuit distributor of sports programming alleged violation of 47 U.S.C.S. §§ 553(a) and 605(a) by the owner of a sports bar who broadcast a boxing match without a licence, a magistrate judge recommended the grant of the distributor’s application for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 because the Eitel factors weighed in favor of entry of default. Finding that the case did not merit an award of enhanced damages, the magistrate judge recommended an award of statutory damages in the amount of $ 10,000.
Magistrate judge recommended that motion for default judgment be granted.