Opinion ID: 2784330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lina breached its fiduciary duty to rochow

Text: The majority nonetheless denies relief on the ground that “Rochow did not suffer an injury remediable” under § 1132(a)(3). Maj. Op. at 14. That statement is plainly contrary to the factual record and extensive case law concerning the types of injuries that plan participants or beneficiaries may redress through equitable remedies available under § 1132(a)(3). We previously recognized that LINA breached its fiduciary duties, Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 482 F.3d 860, 866 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Rochow I”), and the majority acknowledges as much. Maj. Op. at 3. We ruled in the earlier appeal that LINA’s decision to deny Rochow No. 12-2074 Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. Page 34 disability benefits was not made solely in Rochow’s interest—in other words, LINA breached its duty of loyalty to Rochow—and LINA’s decision to deny benefits was not made for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to Rochow as required by § 1104(a)(1). Rochow I, 482 F.3d at 866. The majority opinion and the concurrence point out that this case comes to us with a complex procedural history, pockmarked by irregularities. While I don’t disagree that the case is procedurally complex, I do disagree with the conclusion that the district court reached a final judgment prior to our decision in Rochow I and that it violated the mandate rule by permitting the parties to litigate the disgorgement remedy for the breach of fiduciary duty claim after Rochow I. To be sure, the district court clerk docketed a separate document entitled “Judgment” on the same day that the district court entered the summary judgment order later affirmed in Rochow I, but the “record demonstrates . . . that [this] document was not a judgment but a mere clerical error.” Philhall Corp. v. United States, 546 F.2d 210, 213 (6th Cir. 1976). The court had ruled on LINA’s liability in the context of Rochow’s motion for partial summary judgment and LINA’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court had not made the requisite determination of the remedy. With this important issue outstanding, certainly the district court did not “intend[] the document to be a final judgment.” Id.; 15B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3914.28 (2d ed.) (“[A] summary judgment that determines liability but leaves damages or other relief open for further proceedings is not final.”) Moreover, the document purporting to be a final judgment “was not legally sufficient to constitute a final judgment.” Philhall Corp., 546 F.2d at 213. The Supreme Court has instructed that “it is necessary to determine whether the language . . . (of any purported judgment) embodies the essential elements of a judgment for money and clearly evidences the judge’s intention that it shall be his final act in the case. If it does so, it constitutes his final judgment.” Id. (quoting United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 232 (1958)). “[A] final judgment for money must, at least, determine or specify the means for determining, the amount.” F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. at 233. As in Philhall Corp., 546 F.2d at 213, the document entered by the clerk below “did not have the indicia of a final judgment” because it failed to state that Rochow had prevailed and it did not memorialize any monetary No. 12-2074 Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. Page 35 award. Instead, the document erroneously “dismissed” the case, clearly contradicting the district court’s summary judgment order finding in favor of Rochow on liability. LINA filed a notice of appeal, effectively divesting the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with the litigation pending resolution of the appeal. After our mandate issued in Rochow I, the concurrence posits, the district court lacked jurisdiction to take any further action in the case by operation of the mandate rule. The Hamilton case cited in the concurrence points out that the mandate rule is “discretionary, rather than jurisdictional,” United States v. Hamilton, 440 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 2006), and we have said the same thing, albeit in an unpublished case. Mylant v. United States, 48 F. App’x 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2002) (observing that the mandate rule is one of “policy and practice, not a jurisdictional limitation”). “The basic tenet of the mandate rule is that a district court is bound to the scope of the remand issued by the court of appeals.” United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263, 265 (6th Cir. 1999). The concurrence recognizes that the Rochow I panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order on liability and did not issue any type of remand to the district court. Although the district court was bound to honor our Rochow I decision in completing the litigation, as “with all applications of the law of the case doctrine,” the district court could “consider those issues not decided expressly or impliedly by the appellate court.” Jones v. Lewis, 957 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 1992). Taking up the case again after the Rochow I appeal, the district court determined with finality a monetary award for Rochow that included disgorgement for LINA’s fiduciary breach. The court’s final decision in no way conflicted with the Rochow I mandate. In this second appeal, a panel of our court affirmed the district court’s final decision, Rochow v. LINA, 737 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Rochow II”), and that same final decision is presently before us for en banc review. Consequently, any procedural missteps that occurred earlier in the case are ultimately immaterial for purposes of our en banc decision. Contrary to the majority’s assertion that the district court failed to identify any grounds to support a breach of fiduciary duty claim, Rochow asks us to affirm the district court’s findings that LINA’s conduct involved a number of deliberate and willful wrongful acts, including requiring Rochow to meet insurance policy requirements that did not exist, devising a knowingly false rationale for denying his benefits appeal, and acting without appropriate medical input or No. 12-2074 Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. Page 36 evidence. R. 67, Order; Rochow, 851 F. Supp. 2d at 1101. On the record before us, these findings are not clearly erroneous. See Cultrona v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 698, 706 (6th Cir. 2014). LINA’s fiduciary wrongdoing, separate from its arbitrary and capricious denial of plan benefits, warrants an equitable remedy under § 1132(a)(3).