From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunter v. Federal Express Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 23, 2004
Civil Action No. 03-6711 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 23, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-6711.

September 23, 2004


ORDER


AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2004, upon consideration of defendant's motion to stay (docket entry #25) and plaintiff's response thereto, and the Court finding that:

(a) We ordered defendant to resume paying disability benefits to plaintiff on August 1, 2004, see Order of July 15, 2004, at ¶ 3 (docket entry # 20), and we entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $46,078.97, less applicable taxes, see Judgment of August 2, 2004 (docket entry # 24);

(b) Defendant filed a notice of appeal on September 1, 2004, and it now requests that we stay our Order and Judgment pending resolution of its appeal, if it posts an $120,000.00 supersedeas bond;

(c) Plaintiff does not oppose stay of the August 2, 2004 Judgment, provided that defendant gives an $85,000.00 supersedeas bond;

(d) Still, she opposes staying our July 15, 2004 Order because defendant has been complying with that Order and paying the benefits due in August and September of 2004;

(e) According to plaintiff, defendant's decision to comply with our Order precludes it from obtaining a stay of that Order because, once benefits payments resume, they may only be discontinued after defendant has complied with the terms of the Plan and ERISA;

(f) This argument proves too much because it suggests that, even if the Court of Appeals vacated our decision, defendant would have to continue paying benefits until it proceeded through a termination procedure that complied with the Plan and ERISA;

(g) Clearly, a benefits administrator who resumes paying benefits pursuant to a court order may stop paying benefits if that order is vacated or stayed;

(h) Plaintiff also calls our attention to the hardship that she will face if her benefits are once again discontinued, but she will be in no worse a position than if we had never ordered the resumption of benefits payments;

(i) Moreover, the supersedeas bond provides adequate security that her claims will be fully liquidated if she prevails on appeal;

We do not by this statement belittle the importance of the monthly payments to Ms. Hunter, but we are mindful that, if a judgment is fully secured on appeal, a stay should issue "as a matter of right." See 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2905, at 520 (2d ed. 1995).

(j) We shall, therefore, grant defendant's motion to stay, but the stay shall not take effect until after defendant has posted an $120,000.00 supersedeas bond, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) (permitting stay only after defendant gives a supersedeas bond); and

(k) Unless and until defendant posts this bond, our July 15, 2004 Order remains in full effect, and defendant shall continue paying disability benefits to plaintiff;

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to stay is GRANTED; and

2. Immediately upon the posting with the Clerk of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $120,000.00, our Order of July 15, 2004 shall be STAYED; and

3. Plaintiff shall NOT ATTEMPT TO COLLECT on our Judgment of August 2, 2004 until after the Court of Appeals has rendered its decision.


Summaries of

Hunter v. Federal Express Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 23, 2004
Civil Action No. 03-6711 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 23, 2004)
Case details for

Hunter v. Federal Express Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE HUNTER v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 23, 2004

Citations

Civil Action No. 03-6711 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 23, 2004)