Lumbermen's, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 2:2012cv15606 - Document 40 (E.D. Mich. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 33 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LUMBERMEN S, INC. and LUMBERMEN S, INC. FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:12-cv-15606 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. __________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit one of more than twenty nearly identical civil actions now pending in this District against Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ( BCBSM ) alleging violations of state and federal law arising out of BCBSM s administration of Plaintiffs self-funded employee health benefit plans. A bench trial has been completed in one of the related actions before the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, with Judge Roberts ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and awarding the plaintiffs more than five million dollars, plus costs, interest, and attorney fees. See Judgment, Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 11-12557 (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2013), ECF No. 245. BCBSM is appealing Judge Roberts decision. See Notice of Appeal, Hi-Lex Controls, Inc., No. 11-12557 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2013), ECF No. 250. In a motion filed June 7, 2013, BCBSM seeks to stay the instant action pending the outcome of that appeal. BCBSM argues in its motion for stay pending appeal that the current action involves issues and claims against it which are substantially similar to those decided in Hi-Lex. Thus BCBSM contends that a stay could allow the parties to avoid what will be costly and lengthy proceedings as long as the Hi-Lex appeal remains pending. (Def. s Br. in Support of Mot. at 4, ECF No. 33.) In a response filed June 24, 2013, Plaintiffs raise two objections: (1) A stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in Hi-Lex is both inappropriate and premature[;] and (2) A stay would significantly prejudice Plaintiffs[.] (Pls. Resp. at 7-9, ECF No. 35.) In addition, Plaintiffs request that this Court allow the parties to complete discovery on the facts unique to this case; and . . . allow Plaintiffs to file an early motion for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs objections to Defendant s request for a stay are unpersuasive. First, Plaintiffs contention that stay is particularly inappropriate under the circumstances of this case, as Justice Roberts s findings of fact and conclusions of law in Hi-Lex are binding on BCBSM under principles of collateral estoppel (Pls. 2 Resp. at 8.), is in fact the fundamental reason for staying this matter. As conceded by all parties, the instant action involves legal issues that are substantially similar to, if not identical to, those recently decided in Hi-Lex. (Pls. Resp. at 2; Def. s Br. in Support of Mot. at 1.) Therefore, because any decision rendered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in BCBSM s appeal will surely influence, if not govern, the outcome of Plaintiffs claims here, it would be unwise to proceed with the instant action prior to the Sixth Circuit s review of Judge Roberts decision in Hi-Lex. Other judges in this District recently stayed the proceedings in a number of nearly identical lawsuits against BCBSM on the same grounds. See, e.g., Terryberry Co., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 12-cv-15612 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2013) (Friedman, J.); Labelle Mgmt., Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 13-cv-12500 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2013) (Ludington, J.); SAF-Holland, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 13-cv-11832 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2013) (Cohn, J.); Petoskey Plastics, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 12-cv-15642 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2013) (Edmunds, J.). Second, Plaintiffs concede in their response that any prejudice they may face as a result of a stay would be remedied through judgment interest. (Pls. Resp. Br. at 9.) Plaintiffs displeasure with the current anemic judgment interest rate does 3 not amount to significant prejudice to Plaintiffs warranting a denial of BCBSM s motion. Based on the above considerations, the Court finds a stay of these proceedings appropriate pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal s review of Judge Robert s decision in Hi-Lex Controls Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Stay is GRANTED until such time as the appeals process in Hi-Lex, including any appeal and proceeding on writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, is exhausted. Date: July 24, 2013 S/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record 4

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.