Williams v. Association de Prevoyance Interentreprises et al
Filing
84
ORDER & REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pla's 22 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Pride and Previnter is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Pride's 57 Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is GRANTED, for the reasons stated. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 11/30/2012.(rll, ) Modified on 11/30/2012 to edit doc type (rll, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OTHA MICHAEL WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-1664
ASSOCIATION DE PRÈVOYANCE
INTERENTREPRISES d/b/a/ PREVINTER,
SIACI SAINT HONORÉ d/b/a/ MOBILITY
BENEFITS & PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN
SECTION: “G”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
On January 30, 2012, Plaintiff Otha Michael Williams (“Plaintiff”) moved for an Entry of
Preliminary Default1 against defendants Association de Prèvoyance Interentreprises d/b/a/ Previnter
(“Previnter”) and Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Pride International, Inc.
(“Pride”),2 which the Clerk of Court granted on January 31, 2012.3 On May 2, 2012, the Court held
an evidentiary hearing on the default judgment against Previnter and Pride.4 Plaintiff requests that
the Court enter judgment against Previnter and Pride: (1) awarding Plaintiff past monthly long term
disability benefits of $3,973.58 from September 11, 2009, through the present; (2) declaring that
Plaintiff has a right to ongoing long term disability benefits under the terms of the Plan; (3) awarding
Plaintiff ongoing long term disability benefits under the terms of the Plan; (4) declaring as illegal
and unenforceable the Plan’s claims procedures that require Plaintiff and all Plan participants to
1
Rec. Doc. 22.
2
This defendant has previously been misnamed and/or misidentified as “Pride International, Inc. Long
Term Disability Plan.” See Rec. Doc. 57-1 at p. 1.
3
Rec. Doc. 23.
4
Rec. Doc. 47.
1
appeal adverse benefits determinations through involuntary binding arbitration in France at their
expense; (5) awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to Plaintiff; (6) awarding prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on all amounts due, until paid; and (7) for all other relief that Plaintiff
is entitled.5 On August 31, 2012, Pride filed a motion to set aside the entry of the January 30, 2012
default, wherein it claims that the default judgment must be set aside because it was never properly
served.6 No opposition to the motion was filed.
Courts have routinely withheld from entering a default judgment in multiple defendant cases
when such entry could result in inconsistent judgments among all of the defendants.7 In addition
to Pride and Previnter, Plaintiff has also brought claims against Defendant SAICI Saint Honoré d/b/a
Mobility Benefits (“SAICI”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that all defendants are liable under many
of the same claims alleged,8 including that all defendants violated ERISA by requiring binding
arbitration in France at Plaintiff’s expense.9 Therefore, an entry of default judgment against Pride
and Previnter at the present time may result in inconsistent judgments among all Defendants,
5
Rec. Doc. 50.
6
Rec. Doc. 57. Pride contends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was served upon Sylvie Bouvier, a legal
assistant for SAICI Saint Honore, another defendant, who by law is not able to accept service on behalf of Pride.
Rec. Doc. 57-1 at p. 2. As the Court finds other reasons to set aside entry of the default, and in effect grant Pride’s
motion, the Court need not address the issue of proper service here.
7
See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Paul and Mark’s Inc., No. 10-799, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10961, *13 (E.D.
La. Feb. 3, 2011) (Lemelle, J.) (denying an entry of default judgment when entering default judgment could result in
inconsistent rulings and judgments among the defendants); Mason v. N. Am. Life and Cas. Co., No. 94-1139, 1995
U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *3-*4 (E.D. La. Nov. 15, 1995) (Carr, J.) (“The Court declines to enter judgment against a
defaulting defendant when such a judgment would require resolution of issues of law to the detriment of a defendant
who has answered but has not been heard on the merits.”); See also Wright, Miller, Kane, & Marcus, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2690 (3d. ed. 2012) (“As a general rule, when one of several defendants who is alleged to
be jointly liable defaults, judgments should not be entered against him until the matter has been adjudicated with
regard to all defendants, or all defendants have defaulted. To rule otherwise could result in inconsistent
judgments.”) (citing Frow v. De la Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)).
8
See Rec. Doc. 4 at ¶¶ 25-41.
9
Id. at ¶¶ 25-27.
2
specifically SAICI. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against
Pride and Previnter is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Pride’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of
Default10 is GRANTED, for the reasons stated above.
30th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ______ day of November, 2012.
____________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Rec. Doc. 57.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?