1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-611 (WOB-KLL) 

SHERRY LAAKE, PLAINTIFF 

VS. ORDER

THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, 

WESTERN & SOUTHERN FINANCIAL 

GROUP COMPANY FLEXIBLE 

BENEFITS PLAN, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for 

Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Approval of Supersedeas Bond. 

(Doc. 137). After careful consideration, the Court issues the 

following order. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b), a party may obtain a 

stay as a matter of right by providing a bond or other security. 

Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003).

Defendants have posted a supersedeas bond for the full amount of 

the Court’s judgment, as well as 12 months’ worth of additional 

disability benefits and post-judgment interest. (Docs. 137-1; 

137-2). Plaintiff has no objection to Defendants’ Motion for Stay 

as it relates to the Court’s judgment awarding Plaintiff 

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 7042
2

$380,370.45 in past-due benefits.1 But Plaintiff asks the Court 

to deny the Motion as it relates to the Court’s order reinstating 

Plaintiff’s LTD benefits, arguing this portion of the Court’s order 

is not subject to an automatic stay. (Doc. 138 at 2). 

Both parties agree that the Court’s previous order was a 

declaratory judgment that determined the rights of Plaintiff under 

the terms of the Plan. But Plaintiff argues that the reinstatement 

of Plaintiff’s LTD benefits is injunctive in nature and therefore 

not covered under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b). Defendants argue that 

the Court’s order is equivalent to a monetary judgment because it 

requires them to pay Plaintiff a monthly amount, and thus it is 

subject to an automatic stay under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b).

Importantly, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62 does not explicitly refer to 

declaratory judgments, but instead specifies standards for stays 

involving injunctions and other judgments. 

The Court observes that there is not much case law on this 

issue, and existing case law is inconsistent across circuits. 

Compare Puckett v. Siemens Corp. Long Term Disability Plan #502, 

No. 1:07-cv-441, 2008 WL 11450456, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2008) 

(staying the entirety of an ERISA disability plan benefits case 

1 The Court has discretion to alter the bond amount if it deems necessary. 

Sofco Erectors Inc. v. Trs. of the Ohio Operating Eng’rs Pension Fund, 

No. 2:19-cv-2238, 2021 WL 858728, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021).

However, Plaintiff does not object to the bond amount, and the Court 

finds it reasonable to secure Plaintiff’s rights. See Maxum Indem. Co. 

v. Drive W. Ins. Servs., No. 1:13-cv-191, 2019 WL 340107, at *2–3 (S.D. 

Ohio Jan. 28, 2019). 

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 7043
3

pending appeal), with Hicklin v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 

No. CV 06-4543, 2008 WL 638238, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008) 

(holding that an order directing an insurance company to pay future 

LTD benefits was injunctive in nature and not subject to a stay). 

Absent binding guidance from the Sixth Circuit on the issue, this

Court turns to other district courts within this circuit for 

guidance.

The Court finds Tri County Wholesale Distributors v. Labatt 

USA Operating Co. instructive. 311 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 

2015). In that case, the court discussed at great length how 

declaratory judgments can, in certain circumstances, be monetary 

in nature and therefore appropriately stayed pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. 62(b). The Court need not reiterate the entirety of 

Chief Judge Marbley’s reasoning, but instead hereby incorporates 

it by reference. Id. at 171–77. The primary question courts 

addressing entitlement to a stay pursuant to Rule 62(b) need to 

answer is “whether the appeal is taken from a monetary judgment or 

its equivalent, or an injunction or its equivalent.” Id. at 173 

(citing Yankton Sioux Tribe v. S. Mo. Waste Mgmt. Dist., 926 F. 

Supp. 888, 889–91 (D.S.D. Feb. 29, 1996)).

Plaintiff cites factually analogous cases from the Central 

District of California that held that the reinstatement of LTD 

benefits is injunctive in nature, but the Court is not persuaded 

by the reasoning of these opinions. See, e.g., Hicklin, 2008 WL 

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 7044
4

638238. Specifically, those opinions failed to address the 

different enforcement mechanisms under ERISA. 

Plaintiff in this case brought her claims pursuant to Section 

502(a)(1)(B), which is the statutory vehicle for a claimant seeking 

legal, monetary relief. Hampton v. Henry Ford Health Sys., No. 4-

CV-70221, 2005 WL 2246928, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2005). 

Section 502(a)(1)(B) allows for the claimant to enforce her rights 

under the terms of the plan and to clarify her rights to future 

benefits. The Sixth Circuit has observed that “ERISA § 502(a)(3), 

which authorizes only suits for injunctive or other equitable 

relief, does not, in most situations, authorize an action for money 

claimed to be due and owing.” Crosby v. Bowater Inc. Ret. Plan 

for Salaries Emps. of Great N. Paper, Inc., 382 F.3d 587, 589 (6th 

Cir. 2004). The Court is therefore unpersuaded that the 

declaratory judgment ordering the reinstatement of LTD benefits is 

injunctive in nature. 

Rather, the Court finds that the Court’s order is monetary in 

nature. The reinstatement of LTD benefits requires Defendants to 

pay Plaintiff a certain amount of money per month. “In essence, 

the judgment determines that [Defendants] must relinquish the 

distribution rights over which they currently have possession, and 

those distribution rights are worth a specific sum of money.” Tri 

County, 311 F.R.D. at 174. Therefore, the Court holds that the 

judgment is subject to a stay pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b)

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 7045
5

given that Defendants have posted an appropriate bond amount. See 

also Puckett, 2008 WL 11450456, at *1 (staying the entirety of an 

ERISA disability plan benefits case pending appeal). 

“It is undisputed that the purpose of the supersedeas bond 

not only is to preserve the status quo for the sake of the 

appellant, but also to secure the appellee from loss resulting 

from a stay of execution, as well as to compensate [her] for the 

deprivation of the immediate benefits of its judgment.” Tri 

County, 311 F.R.D. at 176. Here, if the Sixth Circuit affirms the 

Court’s judgment, it will be relatively simple to calculate the 

monetary damage Plaintiff incurred while the case was being 

appealed. Additionally, Defendants have already posted a bond for 

up to 12 months of additional LTD benefits and post-judgment 

interest. Although Plaintiff will likely suffer some financial 

hardship because of the stay, her harm is safeguarded through the 

posting of the bond. Id. at 177. 

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ filing 

of the supersedeas bond entitles them to a stay of the entire 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b). Accordingly, IT IS 

ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, 

(Doc. 137), be, and is hereby, GRANTED.

2. The supersedeas bond amount be, and is hereby, APPROVED. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 7046
6

This 26th day of April 2022. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00611-WOB-KLL Doc #: 140 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 7047