Chao, et al v. Sai Med Health Plan, et al, No. 8:2001cv00325 - Document 369 (D. Md. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Mike Affleck 4/3/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/3/13. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : SECRETARY OF LABOR : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 01-0325 : SAI MED HEALTH PLAN, LLC : MEMORANDUM OPINION The Secretary of Labor brought this ERISA action against Sai Med Health Plan, LLC, and several principals.1 An independent fiduciary was appointed and a number of third-party complaints were filed against Mike Affleck. on behalf of the Plan, including one Although he waived service of process, Mr. Affleck never filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint. On January 15, 2004, a default judgment was entered against him in the amount of $5,093.79. On December 10, 2012, Mr. Affleck filed a petition to vacate judgment by default, which is presently pending. (ECF No. 367). Neither the Secretary of Labor, nor the substitute independent fiduciary, has taken a position on the matter. is deemed necessary. (ECF No. 368). Local Rule 105.6. No hearing For the reasons the follow, the motion will be denied. 1 At the time the action was commenced, Elaine Chao was the Secretary of Labor. Seth Harris is the current Acting Secretary of Labor. In support of his motion, Mr. Affleck asserts that [a]ll funds have been distributed and no party has proceeded against [him]. (ECF No. 367, at 1). He attaches as an exhibit a partial docket sheet, which he purports as demonstrating that the judgment has been satisfied. (Id.). Mr. Affleck cites to no legal authority for his motion, but Fed.R.Civ.P. judgment. 60(b) generally applies to relief from a final Most of the subsections of that provision are clearly inapplicable, although one may appear on the surface to apply. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment if the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. Pursuant to Rule 60(c)(1), a motion under that subsection must be filed within a reasonable time. Despite judgment in discharged, Mr. this nor Affleck s assertion case not is has it equitable considerations. a been to the contrary, satisfied, prospective judgment the released, or subject to Rather, a money judgment was entered against Mr. Affleck, but apparently the party in whose favor it was entered has not yet executed or otherwise collected on it. Thus, Rule 60(b)(5) could have no application, and, even if it did, Mr. Affleck has made no showing as to how his motion, filed nearly nine years after the default judgment was entered and 2 over four years after the case was closed, was brought within a reasonable time. Under Maryland law, which is applicable here, a judgment expires on its own accord twelve years after its entry if it is not renewed prior to that time. See Md. Rule 2-625. Thus, unless it is renewed, the default judgment against Mr. Affleck will expire extraordinary in 2016, step of and there is vacating it no reason prior to to take that the time. Accordingly, the motion to vacate judgment by default will be denied. A separate order will be issued. ________/s/_____________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
