Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 6112 (LTS) (FM).
April 22, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this Memorandum Order the Court addresses: (1) MetLife's motion to permit the filing of a supersedeas bond staying enforcement of the Court's judgment pending appeal; and (2) Plaintiff's motion to hold Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court's April 9, 2007, Order and the Judgment entered therein. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the parties' submissions relating to the aforementioned motion practice. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to post a supersedeas bond is denied and Plaintiff's motion for civil contempt is granted.
MetLife's Motion to Post a Supersedeas Bond
Plaintiff's Motion for Civil Contempt
6262 62Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections984 F.2d 3539In re Tower Automotive, Inc.2007 WL 1975447 Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp.2007 WL 2982295Perez v. Danbury Hosp.347 F.3d 419423-24Perfect Fit Industries, Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co., Inc.673 F.2d 5356-57
The Court also notes that MetLife's application is untimely. Specifically, the Court's November 21, 2007, Order, directed MetLife to pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees. MetLife's current application to obtain a stay by filing a supersedeas bond was not initiated until March 31, 2008 — more than four months after it was ordered to pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and two months after its belated determination as to Plaintiff's entitlement to benefits. Accordingly, the equities do not weigh in favor of granting MetLife's application for a stay in connection with the posting of a supersedeas bond.
In its November 21, 2007, Memorandum Order the Court found MetLife in civil contempt for its wilful failure to comply with the Court's April 2007 Order insofar as that Order required MetLife to make a determination of Plaintiff's disability status.
The Court's April 9, 2007, Opinion and Order was unambiguous. The preexisting condition exclusion was held inapplicable as a matter of law, which means that MetLife cannot use it as a reason for non-payment of benefits. MetLife was directed to award Plaintiff benefits if Plaintiff qualified under the other provisions of the plan. MetLife determined that Plaintiff is entitled to disability benefits under the relevant plan but now takes the position that it is not obliged to pay those benefits unless this Court's April 9, 2007, determination as to the inapplicability of the pre-existing condition exclusion is upheld on appeal. MetLife's position is nothing short of contemptuous. This Court's decision, as incorporated into the judgment remanding the action, is the law of the case and is and was un-stayed. Nothing in the Court's Opinion, the Judgment, or the law permits MetLife to condition its compliance with the Court's direction to award benefits on the outcome of its appeal of the Court's decision. MetLife's approach is contemptuous of the Court's authority and the law, as well as inconsistent with any rational notion of what constitutes a benefit "award" under an ERISA-governed plan and a fiduciary's obligation to act in the best interests of its plan participants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to hold MetLife in contempt and for sanctions is granted. MetLife shall pay Plaintiff her back disability benefits in the amount of $269,552.00, less any applicable withholding taxes, which figure is inclusive of her April 2008 benefit amount, and pay timely her regular monthly benefit amounts thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the plan and the governing judicial determinations. Moreover, MetLife is hereby assessed a $10,000 fine, payable to the Clerk of this Court, and shall also pay Plaintiff's attorney $141,553.27 in attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Court's November 21, 2007, Memorandum Order, plus the $5,850 in attorney's fees that Plaintiff incurred in connection with this contempt motion practice. See New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 952 F. Supp. 1033, 1043-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("it is well settled in this Circuit that costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, may be awarded to the party who prosecutes a contempt motion as an appropriate compensatory sanction for contumacious behavior").
The parties agree that Ms. Cohen's monthly base benefit under the plan is $3,000.00 commencing March 10, 1997, and that the base benefit is reduced by the amount of her initial monthly social security disability benefit, for each month for which she receives such a benefit. The exhibits to the parties motion papers include correspondence from the Social Security Administration identifying Plaintiff's initial June 1997 benefit as $1054.00. (Koob Decl. Ex. D.) Accordingly, Ms. Cohen is entitled to current monthly benefits in the sum of $1,946.00, plus back benefits as follows:
March 1997 — October 1991: 8 months @ $3,000 = $24,000
November 1997: 1 month @ $2,302 ($3,000 - $698) = $2,302
December 1997 — April 2008: 125 months @ $1,946 ($3,000 - $1054) = $243,250Total = $269,552.00
The aforementioned back benefit, fine and attorneys' fees and costs payments shall be made by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 2008, and proof of payment shall be filed promptly with the Clerk of Court. For each calendar day following the April 25, 2008, deadline that Defendant has failed to make any portion of the required payments, it shall pay an additional $1,000 per day penalty, payable directly to Ms. Cohen.
Plaintiff's request for pre- or post-judgment interest as a component of the contempt award is denied without prejudice to any right Plaintiff may have to litigate a claim for such interest in connection with the merits of the case.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant MetLife's motion (docket entry no. 125) to file a supersedeas bond to stay enforcement of the Court's judgment is denied. Plaintiff's motion to hold MetLife in civil contempt is granted (docket entry no. 122). MetLife shall pay Plaintiff her disability back benefits in the amount of $269,552.00, less any applicable withholding taxes, which is inclusive of her April 2008 benefit amount, plus regular monthly benefit amounts thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the plan and the governing judicial determinations. MetLife shall also pay Plaintiff's attorney $141,553.27 in attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Court's November 21, 2007, Memorandum Order, plus $5,850 in attorneys' fees and costs with respect to docket matter no. 122. Additionally, MetLife shall pay the Clerk of Court $10,000 as its fine for contempt of court. The aforementioned back benefit, fine, and attorneys' fees and costs payments shall be made by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 2008, and proof of payment shall be filed promptly with the Clerk of Court. For each calendar day following the April 25, 2008, deadline that Defendant has failed to make any portion of the required payments, it shall pay an additional $1,000 per day penalty, payable directly to Ms. Cohen.SO ORDERED.