Computer and Engineering Services, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER granting 33 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COMPUTER AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC. and C.E.S., INC. AND
TRILLIUM STAFFING WELFARE
BENEFIT PLAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:12-cv-15611
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit– one of more than
twenty nearly identical civil actions now pending in this District– against
Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) alleging violations of
state and federal law arising out of BCBSM’s administration of Plaintiffs’
self-funded employee health benefit plans. A bench trial has been completed in
one of the related actions before the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, with Judge
Roberts ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and awarding the plaintiffs more than five
million dollars, plus costs, interest, and attorney fees. See Judgment, Hi-Lex
Controls, Inc. et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 11-12557
(E.D. Mich. May 23, 2013), ECF No. 245. BCBSM is appealing Judge Roberts’
decision. See Notice of Appeal, Hi-Lex Controls, Inc., No. 11-12557 (E.D. Mich.
June 6, 2013), ECF No. 250. In a motion filed June 7, 2013, BCBSM seeks to stay
the instant action pending the outcome of that appeal.
BCBSM argues in its motion for stay pending appeal that the current action
involves issues and claims against it which are substantially similar to those
decided in Hi-Lex. Thus BCBSM contends that a stay “could allow the parties to
avoid what will be costly and lengthy proceedings as long as the Hi-Lex appeal
remains pending.” (Def.’s Br. in Support of Mot. at 4, ECF No. 33.) In a response
filed June 24, 2013, Plaintiffs raise two objections: (1) “A stay of proceedings
pending the outcome of the appeal in Hi-Lex is both inappropriate and
premature[;]” and (2) “A stay would significantly prejudice Plaintiffs[.]” (Pls.’
Resp. at 7-9, ECF No. 35.) In addition, Plaintiffs request that this Court “allow the
parties to complete discovery on the facts unique to this case; and . . . allow
Plaintiffs to file an early motion for summary judgment based on collateral
estoppel.” (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant’s request for a stay are unpersuasive.
First, Plaintiffs’ contention that “stay is particularly inappropriate under the
circumstances of this case, as Justice Roberts’s findings of fact and conclusions of
2
law in Hi-Lex are binding on BCBSM under principles of collateral estoppel” (Pls.’
Resp. at 8.), is in fact the fundamental reason for staying this matter. As conceded
by all parties, the instant action involves legal issues that are substantially similar
to, if not identical to, those recently decided in Hi-Lex. (Pls.’ Resp. at 2; Def.’s Br.
in Support of Mot. at 1.) Therefore, because any decision rendered by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in BCBSM’s appeal will surely influence, if not govern,
the outcome of Plaintiffs’ claims here, it would be unwise to proceed with the
instant action prior to the Sixth Circuit’s review of Judge Roberts’ decision in
Hi-Lex. Other judges in this District recently stayed the proceedings in a number
of nearly identical lawsuits against BCBSM on the same grounds. See, e.g.,
Terryberry Co., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 12-cv-15612
(E.D. Mich. June 5, 2013) (Friedman, J.); Labelle Mgmt., Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 13-cv-12500 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2013) (Ludington,
J.); SAF-Holland, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No.
13-cv-11832 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2013) (Cohn, J.); Petoskey Plastics, Inc. v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 12-cv-15642 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2013)
(Edmunds, J.).
Second, Plaintiffs concede in their response that any prejudice they may face
as a result of a stay would be remedied through judgment interest. (Pls.’ Resp. Br.
3
at 9.) Plaintiffs’ displeasure with the current “anemic” judgment interest rate does
not amount to significant prejudice to Plaintiffs warranting a denial of BCBSM’s
motion.
Based on the above considerations, the Court finds a stay of these
proceedings appropriate pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s review of
Judge Robert’s decision in Hi-Lex Controls Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Michigan.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED until
such time as the appeals process in Hi-Lex, including any appeal and proceeding on
writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, is exhausted.
Date: July 24, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
4
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?