Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY HYDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEMPER NATIONAL SERVICES, INC.;

LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.;

BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.; VODAFONE

AMERICAS, INC.; VODAFONE AMERICAS,

INC., SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN;

VODAFONE AMERICAS, INC., LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE

HEALTH PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE DENTAL

PLAN; VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; and

DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1782 CW

ORDER ADDRESSING

BACK BENEFITS AND

PRE-JUDGMENT

INTEREST ON

PLAINTIFF'S ERISA

CLAIMS

On June 30, 2006, the Court issued an order granting

Plaintiff's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 for

adjudication of her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

claims against Defendants Kemper National Services, Inc. (Kemper),

Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Co. (Lumberman's), Broadspire

Services, Inc. (Broadspire), Vodafone Americas, Inc., Long Term

Disability Plan (the LTD Plan), and Vodafone Americas, Inc., Short

Term Disability Plan (the STD Plan). Judgment has not entered

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 47 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

because Plaintiff's non-ERISA claims have not yet been adjudicated. 

Nevertheless, in anticipation of entry of judgment on these claims,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed calculation of

back benefits in an amount certain and a formula for calculating

pre-and post-judgment interest. 

Plaintiff now claims that as of the June 30, 2006 Order, she

was entitled to $29,689.49 in net short-term disability back

benefits and $332,457.93 in net long-term disability back benefits. 

Plaintiff also calculates that she is entitled to $5,597.84 per

month in on-going long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff asks

the Court to award pre-judgment interest at the rate of ten percent

per annum, pursuant to California Insurance Code § 10111.2,

compounded annually, or alternatively pre-judgment interest at the

rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), compounded monthly. 

Plaintiff also requests post-judgment interest pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1961(a). 

Without waiving their rights to contest the Court's decision

against them, Defendants agree with Plaintiff's calculation of back

benefits. The calculation of her ongoing benefits and of postjudgment interest is not disputed. However, Defendants dispute the

appropriate pre-judgment interest rate, arguing that the § 1961(a)

rate applies. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court properly

awarded a plaintiff, who prevailed on her ERISA claim for

disability insurance benefits, pre-judgment interest at the 

§ 1961(a) federal rate, rather than California's ten per cent

statutory rate. Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 47 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2001). The court explained that the 

§ 1961(a) rate was appropriate "unless the trial judge finds, on

substantial evidence, that the equities of that particular case

require a different rate." Id. at 1164 (quoting Nelson v. EG&G

Energy Measurements Group, Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir.

1994)). In light of this clear holding, Plaintiff's more general

analysis of the issue of ERISA preemption is inapposite. 

Plaintiff has not shown substantial evidence that the equities

in this particular case demand the higher rate, and the Court does

not so find. The Court will award pre-judgment interest at the

rate described in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). However, the Court

finds that, in order to make Plaintiff whole, the equities demand

that the pre-judgment interest be compounded monthly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/11/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 47 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 3