Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1900761.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:48:12+00:00

Document:
Thomas JONES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Joseph Charles Lohfink, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Sue Beavers, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Rodolfoa Rel, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Hazel Reed Thomas, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
Regina Cobb, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; et al, Plaintiffs v.
Martha Ezell Lowe, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v.
From 2009 to 2014, SRHS “failed to make all but one of its contributions needed to maintain the Plan’s fiscal integrity.”5 In November 2014, the Board decided to freeze and liquidate the Plan. Certain SRHS retirees immediately sought injunctive relief in the Jackson County Chancery Court, which ordered SRHS not to terminate the Plan. As a result of that order, the Plan was “frozen,” meaning that no new contributions came in, but benefit payments continued to go out. In August 2015, the Chancery Court held that, as a matter of law, SRHS was indebted to the Plan for the missed contributions plus lost earnings, a sum exceeding $55 million.
More lawsuits followed, including the three now-consolidated Rule 23 class actions that provide the basis for this appeal, styled as the Jones, Cobb, and Lowe cases. After expedited discovery and several mediation sessions with a court-appointed mediator, the parties developed a settlement agreement. The Jones Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, and the court granted the motion, conditionally certified the class, and approved procedures for notifying class members.
In light of the “strong judicial policy favoring the resolution of disputes through settlement,” our appellate review is limited and “an approved settlement will not be upset unless the court clearly abused its discretion.”17 Having reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the pertinent portions of the record—and with the benefit of oral argument—we are not persuaded that the district court here abused its discretion. While the Objectors raise a number of issues in their briefing, many of their claims have been waived or merely repackage arguments already raised and rejected in their earlier appeal, and their remaining arguments are without support in the record.
AFFIRMED. The Motion to Strike Appellant’s Brief is DENIED AS MOOT.
1. The facts underlying this action are set forth in more detail in this Court’s prior opinion in this matter. See Jones v. Singing River Health Servs. Found., 865 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2017).
2. The Plan was established as a successor to the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi.
3. Jones, 865 F.3d at 289 (noting that “although the Plan states it was established in confidence that it would continue indefinitely,” it also contains a provision stating that SRHS “reserve[s] the right to terminate the Plan ․, in whole or in part, at any time”).
6. Additional terms of the Settlement Agreement are discussed at length in our prior opinion. See id. at 290–92.
12. “The ‘law of the case’ doctrine provides that ‘a decision of a factual or legal issue by an appellate court establishes the ‘law of the case’ and must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal in the appellate court․’ ” Lyons v. Fisher, 888 F.2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Goodpasture, Inc. v. M/V Pollux, 688 F.2d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1982) ). See also Musacchio v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 709, 716, 193 L.Ed.2d 639 (2016) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine generally provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
13. In re Felt, 255 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2001).
14. Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 329 (5th Cir. 1999) ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
15. Gen. Universal Sys., Inc., 500 F.3d at 453 (internal quotation marks omitted).
16. See, e.g., id. at 453–454.
17. Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. Unit A 1982). See also Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983) (“The teaching of these cases is that the district court’s approval of a proposed settlement may not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”).

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.