Guest-Marcotte v. Life Insurance Company Of North America et al
ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 69 Objection. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KIMBERLY J. GUEST-MARCOTTE,
Case No. 15-cv-10738
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
COMPONENTS, Inc., et al.,
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
Plaintiff Kimberly J. Guest-Marcotte initiated this case by filing her two-count complaint
on February 27, 2015. Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her
rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and
(a)(2) (“ERISA”) in denying her request for short term disability benefits, and her rights under
Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”) in subsequently terminating
her employment. Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on April 19, 2016. See ECF No. 44. On
December 1, 2016 the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation addressing
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment, Plaintiff’s motion for consideration of recent case law, and
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case and for judgment on its counterclaim. See ECF No. 54,
55, 60. The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for consideration be granted,
but that her motion for judgment be denied. See ECF No. 63. The report also recommended
granting Defendant’s motion for judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
In response, Plaintiff filed three objections. See ECF No. 64. Plaintiff did not specifically
object to the magistrate judge’s finding that judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant as
to its counterclaim. By an order dated January 6, 2017 Plaintiff’s objections were overruled on
the grounds that they were improperly general and merely restated the core arguments previously
raised and already addressed by the magistrate. The magistrate judge’s report was adopted, and
Defendant was directed to submit a proposed judgment in compliance with Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 58.1(c).
Defendant submitted its proposed judgment on January 12, 2017. See ECF No. 68. In
the proposed judgment, Defendant seeks an award in the amount of $7,286.29 plus prejudgment
interest from April 24, 2015 and postjudgment interest. Id. On January 17, 2017 Plaintiff filed
an objection to any award of prejudgment interest. See ECF No. 69. Defendant has since filed a
response, arguing that the award is appropriate because the 1-year Treasury constant maturity
rate has been less than 1% and because Plaintiff prolonged Defendant’s attempt to secure
While Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s legal strategy caused unnecessary delay is
unpersuasive, pre-judgment interest is still appropriate. “Though ERISA does not address the
propriety of awarding prejudgment interest, prejudgment interest may be awarded in the
discretion of the district court. Awards of prejudgment interest are compensatory, not punitive,
and a finding of wrongdoing by the defendant is not a prerequisite to such an award.” Rochow v.
Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 780 F.3d 364, 376 (6th Cir.) (quoting Tiemeyer v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 8
F.3d 1094, 1103 (6th Cir. 1993)). Plaintiff enjoyed the benefit of payments that she was not
entitled to. Prejudgment interest has the effect of compensating Defendant for the lost interest
value of the payments. Furthermore the requested rate is not excessive. Plaintiff’s objection will
be overruled, and prejudgment interest awarded.
Accordingly it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection, ECF No. 69 is OVERRULED.
Defendant’s proposed judgment will be entered as submitted.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 2, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 2, 2017.
s/Kelly Winslow for
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager
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?