Computer and Engineering Services, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan

Filing 45

OPINION AND ORDER granting 42 Motion To Lift Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMPUTER AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.
12-CV-15611

vs.
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO LIFT STAY
On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit – one of more than fifty
nearly identical civil actions filed 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 was held in one of the related actions before the
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, who ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded
them more than five million dollars, plus costs, interest, and attorney fees. See
Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., No. 11-CV-12557, 2013
WL 2285453 (May 23, 2013). BCBSM appealed.
On July 24, 2013, this Court stayed the present case “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.” Computer & Eng’g Servs., Inc.
v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., No. 12-CV-15611, 2013 WL 3835352, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Jul. 24, 2013). On May 14, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the judgment issued by Judge Roberts in Hi-Lex, and the United States
Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 20, 2014. See Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 751 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, --- S. Ct.
---, 2014 WL 3965217 (Oct. 20, 2014).
Because the Hi-Lex litigation is now concluded, Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the
stay is GRANTED.1 The Court will issue a notice setting a date and time for a
status conference in this matter. At the status conference, the parties should be
prepared to discuss the next steps in this case, including the status of the pending
dispositive motion.
SO ORDERED.

1

A few days before the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Hi-Lex case,
BCBSM filed a brief opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, arguing that the
Court should not lift the stay until the writ of certiorari is adjudicated. Because the
Supreme Court has now adjudicated the writ, BCBSM’s sole argument in opposition
to lifting the stay is moot.
2

Dated: October 30, 2014

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3