Lundsten v. Creative Community Living Services et al

Filing 113

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper for Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/11/2016 GRANTING 111 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JILL M. LUNDSTEN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-108

CREATIVE COMMUNITY LIVING
SERVICES, Inc., LONG-TERM
DISABILITY PLAN, CREATIVE COMMUNITY
LIVING SERVICES, Inc., and AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
This is an ERISA action to recover long-term disability benefits. In a
series of orders, the Court addressed the appropriate standard of review
and held that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Both
sides appealed, and while the appeal was pending, the parties entered a
settlement agreement conditioned upon the Court’s judgment being
vacated. The parties now jointly move for an indicative ruling that the
Court would grant their request to vacate the judgment as a condition of
the settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1. For the reasons that follow, this
motion is granted.
If a settlement is reached on appeal, the court of appeals can vacate

the judgment under review, but only in exceptional circumstances. U.S.
Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994). In the
alternative, an appellate court can remand the case with instructions that
the district court consider the request for vacatur under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Id.; Mayes v. City of Hammond, Ind., 631 F. Supp. 2d
1082, 1086 (N.D. Ind. 2008). Unlike the appeals court, this Court’s
discretion is not cabined by the “exceptional circumstances” test set forth in
Bonner Mall. Marseilles Hydro Power LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co.,
481 F.3d 1002, 1003 (7th Cir. 2007). Instead, the Court balances the
various public and private interests at stake, including the effect on
judicial precedent, the preclusive effect of the Court’s opinion, and the
impact on judicial resources. City of Hammond, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 1089
(collecting cases). “Given the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry required,
it seems appropriate that a district court should enjoy greater equitable
discretion when reviewing its own judgments than do appellate courts
operating at a distance.” Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d
1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Court expended a substantial amount of resources in bringing
this case to judgment. Under such circumstances, “it may be inappropriate
to approve a settlement that squanders judicial time that has already been
-2-

invested.” Matter of Mem’l Hosp. of Iowa Cnty., Inc., 862 F.2d 1299, 1302
(7th Cir. 1988). However, the settlement in this case would conserve
judicial resources by obviating the need for further appellate proceedings.
Moreover, even if the Seventh Circuit affirmed on all grounds, this dispute
would not come to an end. Instead, the plaintiff would be entitled to renew
her claim for benefits at the administrative level, which could generate
further appeals and yet another action for review in district court.
Therefore, the public’s interest in preserving judicial resources favors
vacatur.
The private interests, for similar reasons, also favor vacatur. By
ending this litigation now, both parties receive the benefit of a specific
litigation outcome and are spared the burden of further administrative
proceedings.
Regarding precedent, this Court’s opinions are only relevant as
persuasive authority, and the opinions “will not be ripped from the Federal
Supplement …. [They] will still be available and will still be citable for …
persuasive weight.” NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council, 488
F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the proposed settlement resolves
all issues between the parties. Therefore, the impact on res judicata – the
preclusive effect of the Court’s judgment – is unimportant.
-3-

The parties’ joint motion for an indicative ruling [ECF No. 111] is
GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of January, 2016.
SO ORDERED:
s/ Pamela Pepper
for HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-4-