IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Scott D. Dalesandro, )

et al., )

) 

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 1:01-CV-109

)

vs. )

)

International Paper )

Company, )

)

Defendant. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

On March 20, 2003, the Court entered an order (Doc. No.

39) granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and

motion for judgment. The Court certified a class consisting of:

All participants under Severance Policy #828 who were

employed by International Paper Company at the Hamilton

B Street Mill and who were terminated without cause on

February 9, 2001 as a result of the sale of the Mill to

Smart Paper, and who were denied severance benefits

under Severance Policy #828.

Doc. No. 39, at 28-29. On June 30, 2005, the parties filed under 

seal a stipulation (Doc. No. 94) regarding the severance benefits

due each participant assuming the Court’s judgment is affirmed on

appeal. The parties have stipulated that the amount of severance

benefits due to the class is $4,203,760.32. See id. The Court

enters contemporaneously herewith an order awarding Plaintiffs 

$323,531.80 in attorney’s fees and $6,334.77 in costs as the

prevailing parties. In addition to these awards, Plaintiffs move

the Court to include certain other findings or judgments in the

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 1 of 6
2

final judgment. See Doc. No. 92, at 9-10. However, as the Court

briefly explains below, these additional findings are subsumed

explicitly or implicitly in previous orders of the Court. 

Consequently, the Court does not believe that those findings or

judgments need to be repeated here.

A. Pre and Postjudgment Interest

The district court in its discretion may award a

prevailing plaintiff prejudgment interest. Caffey v. UNUM Life

Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 576, 585 (6th Cir. 2002). It is generally

appropriate to award an ERISA plaintiff prejudgment interest in

order to compensate him or her for the loss of use of money on

benefits wrongfully withheld. Ford v. Uniroyal Pension Plan, 154

F.3d 613, 620 (6th Cir. 1998). The trial court may award

prejudgment interest in an ERISA case at the weekly average one

year constant maturity Treasury yield pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1961(a), using the rate from the week preceding the entry of

judgment. Caffey, 302 F.3d at 585 n.3; 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). 

Here, Plaintiffs should be awarded prejudgment interest in order

to make them whole for the loss of use of the funds wrongfully

withheld by the plan administrator.

Plaintiffs contend that prejudgment interest should

accrue eight days from their termination date because the plan

provides that payment date for benefits. Plaintiffs also contend

that the Court should use the rate prevailing at the time that

benefits were payable to calculate prejudgment interest. The

Court disagrees with both contentions. Prejudgment interest

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 2 of 6
3

accrues from the date the plan administrator denies the

participant’s claim for benefits. Cottrill v. Sparrow, Johnson &

Ursillo, Inc., 100 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 1996). In this case,

the plan administrator, Robert Florio, issued his interpretation

of the plan and decision denying Plaintiffs’ claim for benefits

on March 12, 2001. Doc. No. 39, at 7-9. Although the plan

administrator’s decision was not affirmed on appeal until

December 7, 2001, prejudgment interest should accrue from March

12, 2001 because that is the date Plaintiffs would have been

entitled to severance benefits had the plan administrator

interpreted the plan correctly. Finally, although the Court is

not bound to apply the formula in § 1961(a) when calculating

prejudgment interest, see EEOC v. Wooster Brush Co. Emp. Relief

Ass’n, 727 F.2d 566, 579 (6th Cir. 1984), the opinions in Wooster

Brush, Caffey, and Ford indicate that the statutory formula is a

presumptively reasonable method to employ. However, the rate

proposed by Plaintiffs, 4.72%, paid over the duration of this

lawsuit, would result in a windfall to them because interest

rates have fallen substantially since early 2001. Consequently,

as the cases invite trial courts to do, this Court will use the

interest rate provided by § 1961(a) to calculate prejudgment

interest.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ are entitled to prejudgment

interest as follows:

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 3 of 6
1 According to the Federal Reserve’s website, http://

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/Current/ (visited July 8,

2005).

2 Interest accrued as follows in the preceding years:

2001 - 294 days; 2002 - 365 days; 2003 - 365 days; 2004 - 365

days; 2005 - 189 days.

4

Amount of Judgment Rate1

 Days/365 Interest Due

 $4,203,760.32 x 3.46% 1,578/3652 = $628,822.65

The district court is required, however, to award a

prevailing plaintiff postjudgment interest. Caffey, 302 F.3d at

586. Moreover, the district court is required to base its award

of postjudgment interest on the total judgment inclusive of

prejudgment interest. Id. Postjudgment interest also accrues on

the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at

590-91. Postjudgment interest accrues from the date of final

judgment at the rate provided by § 1961(a) as well. Scotts Co.

v. Central Garden & Pet Co., 403 F.3d 781, 792 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, postjudgment interest shall accrue at a rate of

3.46% per annum on the total judgment until the date the judgment

is paid in full by International Paper.

B. Flex Six Benefits

Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a finding regarding

the Class members eligible for a Flex Six enhancement to their

pension agreement. The parties are now in agreement with regard

to the identity of those class members. See Doc. No. 94. 

Therefore, there is no case or controversy on that issue and

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 4 of 6
5

consequently no need for the Court to include such a finding its

judgment.

C. Notice to the Class

As indicated by the fact that counsel was unable to

provide notice to only one member of the 149 member class, see

Doc. No. 68, at 2, the Court finds that the form, manner, and

dissemination of notice to the Class was the best notice

practicable under the circumstances and complied with the

provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

D. Miscellaneous

1. Plaintiffs ask that the judgment contain the class definition. 

The Court already defined the class in its order granting class

certification. Doc. No. 39.

2. Plaintiffs ask that the judgment find that International Paper

wrongfully denied the class members severance benefits payable

under the policy. That finding is subsumed in the Court’s order

granting Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and denying

International Paper’s motion for judgment on the administrative

record. Doc. No. 39.

4. Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that payment of attorney’s

fees by International Paper is appropriate pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(g)(1). That finding is incorporated in the Court’s order

awarding Plaintiffs attorney’s fees. The Court also addressed in

that order the issues of a fee multiplier, an award of expenses,

payment of a contingent fee to class counsel, and incentive

awards for the class representatives.

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 5 of 6
6

Conclusion

In conclusion, in accordance with the Court’s previous

orders, the Court awards Plaintiffs $4,203,760.32 in damages,

$628,822.65 in prejudgment interest, $6,334.77 in expenses, and

$323,531.80 in attorney’s fees. Postjudgment interest shall

accrue on the sum of these awards ($5,162,449.54) at a rate of

3.46% per annum. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this

case to resolve any supplemental fee application by Plaintiffs. 

Jankovich v. Bowen, 868 F.2d 867, 871 (6th Cir. 1989)(district

courts generally retain jurisdiction to consider postjudgment

motion for attorney’s fees). Pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, International Paper shall pay

the court costs of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date July 8, 2005 s/Sandra S. Beckwith 

 Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief Judge 

 United States District Court

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 97 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 6 of 6