employees. Because the 133$ percent schedule would also prevent a plan from ever increasing benefits for all employees by more than one-third of the value of the original benefits, the schedule provides that “any amendment to the plan which is in effect for the current year shall be treated as in effect for all other plan years” and that “any change in an accrual rate which does not apply to any individual who is or could be a participant in the current year shall be disregarded.” Id. Thus, in determining whether a new benefit formula violates the 133$ percent rule, one does not compare the new formula with the old formula; rather, the backload-ing question must be answered by considering the new formula on a stand-alone basis. See Langman v. Laub, 328 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiffs’ anti-backloading claim
holding that removal under the second paragraph of  1446b did not apply and defendants therefore had removed outside of the thirty day time period triggered at the time of service of the complaint holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss holding that 133 percent test is irrelevant to acrosstheboard increases in benefit rates made at some future time on behalf of all current employees regardless of period of service recognizing that service of process irrelevant in the initial determination of diversity