14‐3916 Skelly v. Pension Plan for Ins. Orgs. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ LAURENCE J. SKELLY, and ELLEN BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs ‐ Appellants, ‐v.‐ No. 14‐3916 INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC. and THE PENSION PLAN FOR INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS, Defendants ‐ Appellees.* * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. ____________________________________________ FOR APPELLANTS: BENNET SUSSER (Richard S. Meisner, Alissa Pyrich, on the brief), Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C., Florham Park, NJ. FOR APPELLEES: ROBERT W. RACHAL, Proskauer Rose LLP, New Orleans, LA (Myron D. Rumeld, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Insurance Services Office, Inc.; JONATHAN L. SULDS, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, for The Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. ____________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs‐Appellants Laurence Skelly and Ellen Burke, on behalf of a putative class, allege that Defendants‐Appellants, including Plaintiffs’ former employer, Insurance Services Office, Inc., violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims by memorandum dated September 12, 2014, which was filed on September 15, 2014, Skelly v. Ins. Servs. Office, Inc., No. 12‐8889, Doc. No. 50 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2014), and order dated September 16, 2014. Plaintiffs now appeal. 2 We have considered all of Plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3