Unum Group v. Baker

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Plaintiff is to be paid the amount of $35,170.87, out of Defendant's third-party settlement funds. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 12/13/2019. (nl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
UNUM GROUP,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01210-DBP
BRIAN T. BAKER,
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendant.

Plaintiff Unum Group brought this action seeking equitable relief to redress alleged
violations under the terms of an employer-sponsored LTD plan (“Plan”) that Defendant Brian
T. Baker, pro se, participated in. 1 See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). On September 5, 2019, the
court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff concluding that the Plan expressly
permitted “Unum to subtract other sources of income, such as Social Security Disability
payments and third-party settlement payments, from Mr. Baker’s monthly LTD benefit.”
(ECF No. 30 p. 5.) The court did not enter an amount that Unum was entitled to at that time
because of Mr. Baker’s claim that he was taxed on certain sums he received. The court
received documentation concerning the amounts owing and held a hearing on Mr. Baker’s
offset claims November 14, 2019. Mr. Baker was personally present at the hearing as well as
counsel for Plaintiff.
At the November hearing, the court heard from the parties regarding the amount
owing. After hearing from all parties, the court provided Mr. Baker additional time to provide
any evidence that contradicts the amount owing as set forth in Plaintiff’s Errata filed on that

1

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (ECF No. 11.)

same date. (ECF No. 34.) Mr. Baker was directed to post mark any response, including bank
statements or other documentation that supported his claim of any offset, by November 27th.
Further, the court informed Mr. Baker that if it did not receive a response by December 4th,
the court would proceed to issue a ruling. Because Mr. Baker is proceeding pro se the court
afforded him additional time past December 4th to comply. To date, the court has not
received any response from Mr. Baker. The court, therefore, enters the following:
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Errata regarding amount owing. Unum
recalculated the amount owing through termination of Mr. Baker’s benefits under the Plan,
which ended on December 21, 2018. Included in Plaintiff’s documentation is a table of
calculations that sets forth the dates, amounts paid and the total overpayment Plaintiff is owed
under the Plan. The total amount overpaid to Mr. Baker is $35,170.87. The court finds this
amount supported by the record.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to be paid the amount of
$35,170.87, out of Defendant’s third-party settlement funds. Judgment therefore is hereby
entered in the amount of $35,170.87 against Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13 December 2019.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

2