Lumbermen's, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 2:2012cv15606 - Document 45 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 42 Motion To Lift Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

Download PDF
Lumbermen's, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LUMBERMEN’S INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 12-CV-15606 vs. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO LIFT STAY On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit – one of more than fifty nearly identical civil actions filed 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 was held in one of the related actions before the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, who ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them more than five million dollars, plus costs, interest, and attorney fees. See Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., No. 11-CV-12557, 2013 WL 2285453 (May 23, 2013). BCBSM appealed. On July 24, 2013, this Court stayed the present case “until such time as the Dockets.Justia.com appeals process in Hi–Lex, including any appeal and proceeding on writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, is exhausted.” Lumbermen’s, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., No. 12-CV-15606, 2013 WL 3835339, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 24, 2013). On May 14, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgment issued by Judge Roberts in Hi-Lex, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 20, 2014. See Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 751 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ---, 2014 WL 3965217 (Oct. 20, 2014). Because the Hi-Lex litigation is now concluded, Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay is GRANTED.1 The Court will issue a notice setting a date and time for a status conference in this matter. At the status conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the next steps in this case, including the status of the pending dispositive motion. SO ORDERED. 1 A few days before the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Hi-Lex case, BCBSM filed a brief opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, arguing that the Court should not lift the stay until the writ of certiorari is adjudicated. Because the Supreme Court has now adjudicated the writ, BCBSM’s sole argument in opposition to lifting the stay is moot. 2 Dated: October 30, 2014 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record 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.