Laake v. The Benefits Committee, Western & Southern Financial Group Company Flexible Benefits Plan et al
Filing
140
ORDER granting 137 Motion to Stay for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Approval of Supersedeas Bond. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 4/26/2022. (eh)
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 7042
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-611 (WOB-KLL)
SHERRY LAAKE,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
ORDER
THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE,
WESTERN & SOUTHERN FINANCIAL
GROUP COMPANY FLEXIBLE
BENEFITS PLAN, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for
Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Approval of Supersedeas Bond.
(Doc. 137).
After careful consideration, the Court issues the
following order.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b), a party may obtain a
stay as a matter of right by providing a bond or other security.
Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003).
Defendants have posted a supersedeas bond for the full amount of
the Court’s judgment, as well as 12 months’ worth of additional
disability benefits and post-judgment interest.
137-2).
as
it
(Docs. 137-1;
Plaintiff has no objection to Defendants’ Motion for Stay
relates
to
the
Court’s
judgment
1
awarding
Plaintiff
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 7043
$380,370.45 in past-due benefits. 1
But Plaintiff asks the Court
to deny the Motion as it relates to the Court’s order reinstating
Plaintiff’s LTD benefits, arguing this portion of the Court’s order
is not subject to an automatic stay.
(Doc. 138 at 2).
Both parties agree that the Court’s previous order was a
declaratory judgment that determined the rights of Plaintiff under
the terms of the Plan. But Plaintiff argues that the reinstatement
of Plaintiff’s LTD benefits is injunctive in nature and therefore
not covered under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b).
Defendants argue that
the Court’s order is equivalent to a monetary judgment because it
requires them to pay Plaintiff a monthly amount, and thus it is
subject to an automatic stay under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b).
Importantly, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62 does not explicitly refer to
declaratory judgments, but instead specifies standards for stays
involving injunctions and other judgments.
The Court observes that there is not much case law on this
issue, and existing case law is inconsistent across circuits.
Compare Puckett v. Siemens Corp. Long Term Disability Plan #502,
No. 1:07-cv-441, 2008 WL 11450456, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2008)
(staying the entirety of an ERISA disability plan benefits case
The Court has discretion to alter the bond amount if it deems necessary.
Sofco Erectors Inc. v. Trs. of the Ohio Operating Eng’rs Pension Fund,
No. 2:19-cv-2238, 2021 WL 858728, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021).
However, Plaintiff does not object to the bond amount, and the Court
finds it reasonable to secure Plaintiff’s rights. See Maxum Indem. Co.
v. Drive W. Ins. Servs., No. 1:13-cv-191, 2019 WL 340107, at *2–3 (S.D.
Ohio Jan. 28, 2019).
1
2
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 7044
pending appeal), with Hicklin v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
No. CV 06-4543, 2008 WL 638238, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008)
(holding that an order directing an insurance company to pay future
LTD benefits was injunctive in nature and not subject to a stay).
Absent binding guidance from the Sixth Circuit on the issue, this
Court turns to other district courts within this circuit for
guidance.
The Court finds Tri County Wholesale Distributors v. Labatt
USA Operating Co. instructive.
2015).
311 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 14,
In that case, the court discussed at great length how
declaratory judgments can, in certain circumstances, be monetary
in nature and therefore appropriately stayed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 62(b).
The Court need not reiterate the entirety of
Chief Judge Marbley’s reasoning, but instead hereby incorporates
it by reference.
Id. at 171–77.
The primary question courts
addressing entitlement to a stay pursuant to Rule 62(b) need to
answer is “whether the appeal is taken from a monetary judgment or
its equivalent, or an injunction or its equivalent.”
Id. at 173
(citing Yankton Sioux Tribe v. S. Mo. Waste Mgmt. Dist., 926 F.
Supp. 888, 889–91 (D.S.D. Feb. 29, 1996)).
Plaintiff cites factually analogous cases from the Central
District of California that held that the reinstatement of LTD
benefits is injunctive in nature, but the Court is not persuaded
by the reasoning of these opinions. See, e.g., Hicklin, 2008 WL
3
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 7045
638238.
Specifically,
those
opinions
failed
to
address
the
different enforcement mechanisms under ERISA.
Plaintiff in this case brought her claims pursuant to Section
502(a)(1)(B), which is the statutory vehicle for a claimant seeking
legal, monetary relief.
Hampton v. Henry Ford Health Sys., No. 4-
CV-70221, 2005 WL 2246928, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2005).
Section 502(a)(1)(B) allows for the claimant to enforce her rights
under the terms of the plan and to clarify her rights to future
benefits.
The Sixth Circuit has observed that “ERISA § 502(a)(3),
which authorizes only suits for injunctive or other equitable
relief, does not, in most situations, authorize an action for money
claimed to be due and owing.”
Crosby v. Bowater Inc. Ret. Plan
for Salaries Emps. of Great N. Paper, Inc., 382 F.3d 587, 589 (6th
Cir.
2004).
The
Court
is
therefore
unpersuaded
that
the
declaratory judgment ordering the reinstatement of LTD benefits is
injunctive in nature.
Rather, the Court finds that the Court’s order is monetary in
nature.
The reinstatement of LTD benefits requires Defendants to
pay Plaintiff a certain amount of money per month. “In essence,
the judgment determines that [Defendants] must relinquish the
distribution rights over which they currently have possession, and
those distribution rights are worth a specific sum of money.”
County, 311 F.R.D. at 174.
Tri
Therefore, the Court holds that the
judgment is subject to a stay pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b)
4
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 7046
given that Defendants have posted an appropriate bond amount.
See
also Puckett, 2008 WL 11450456, at *1 (staying the entirety of an
ERISA disability plan benefits case pending appeal).
“It is undisputed that the purpose of the supersedeas bond
not only is to preserve the status quo for the sake of the
appellant, but also to secure the appellee from loss resulting
from a stay of execution, as well as to compensate [her] for the
deprivation of the immediate benefits of its judgment.”
County, 311 F.R.D. at 176.
Tri
Here, if the Sixth Circuit affirms the
Court’s judgment, it will be relatively simple to calculate the
monetary
appealed.
damage
Plaintiff
incurred
while
the
case
was
being
Additionally, Defendants have already posted a bond for
up to 12 months of additional LTD benefits and post-judgment
interest.
Although Plaintiff will likely suffer some financial
hardship because of the stay, her harm is safeguarded through the
posting of the bond.
Id. at 177.
For the above reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ filing
of the supersedeas bond entitles them to a stay of the entire
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b).
Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal,
(Doc. 137), be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
2. The supersedeas bond amount be, and is hereby, APPROVED.
5
Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 7047
This 26th day of April 2022.
6
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?