united states district court bancorp, inc., defendants. : … · 2019-03-22 · ryan m. martin...
TRANSCRIPT
12881476.1 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH J. MEZYK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,v.
U.S. BANK PENSION PLAN and U.S.BANCORP, INC.,
Defendants.____________________________________
:::::::::::
Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-384-JPG
Judge J. Phil Gilbert
: Consolidated with
THOMAS L. PELLETT and RICHARD A.WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf ofAll Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK PENSION PLAN,
Defendant.
::::::::::::
Case No. 3:10-cv-686-JPG-DGW
JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANDPROPOSED CLASS NOTICE
Plaintiffs Joseph Mezyk, Mary Mulqueeney, Doris Carthy, Shirley Chatman, Peggy
Raymond, Thomas Pellett and Richard Williams (the “Class Representatives”) and Defendants
U.S. Bank Pension Plan and U.S. Bancorp (collectively “USBPP”) have entered into a
Settlement Agreement resolving, subject to additional class certification and Court approval, all
the claims of the parties.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the parties jointly move the Court to enter an Order:
(1) Granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreementsubject to a final fairness hearing;
(2) Approving the proposed notice to be sent to the class members affected bythe settlement; and
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #2024
12881476.1
2
(3) Setting a date for a hearing on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacyof the proposed Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 23(e).
A Memorandum in Support of this Motion is attached, along with a copy of the proposed
Notice to Class Members (Exhibit A) and a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement, which
is attached to the Notice to Class Members as Attachment 1. A proposed Agreed Order has also
been submitted to the Court’s chambers by email to [email protected].
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David L. SteelmanDavid L. SteelmanSteelman, Gaunt & Horsefield901 Pine Street, Suite 110Rolla, MO 65402(573) [email protected]
Matthew ArmstrongArmstrong Law Firm LLC8816 Manchester Road, No. 109St. Louis, MO 63144(314) [email protected]
Co-Class Counsel
/s/ Gregory Parker RogersGregory Parker RogersRyan M. MartinTaft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957(513) [email protected]@taftlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #2025
12881476.1 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH J. MEZYK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,v.
U.S. BANK PENSION PLAN and U.S.BANCORP, INC.,
Defendants.____________________________________
:::::::::::
Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-384-JPG
Judge J. Phil Gilbert
: Consolidated with
THOMAS L. PELLETT and RICHARD A.WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf ofAll Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK PENSION PLAN,
Defendant.
::::::::::::
Case No. 3:10-cv-686-JPG-DGW
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFJOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANDPROPOSED CLASS NOTICE
I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiffs and USBPP, following extensive arms’ length negotiations, have entered
into a Settlement Agreement that would resolve all claims raised in this proceeding. The parties
jointly submit the Settlement Agreement for preliminary approval by the Court, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(e). By this Motion, the parties respectfully submit that the Court should grant
preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement, approve the notice to class members, and
schedule the fairness hearing for final approval.
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #2026
12881476.1
2
II. BACKGROUND
As is discussed in the proposed Settlement Agreement, Mezyk v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan
and Pellett v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan are the third and fourth lawsuits brought against USBPP
concerning the January 1, 1999 amendment of the Mercantile Bancorporation Inc. Retirement
Plan from a final average pay defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance defined benefit
pension plan.
The first case filed was Chamberlain v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan, Case No. 3:04-CV-841
(S.D. Ill.). That case was a putative class action, claiming that all cash balance plans were
inherently age discriminatory in violation of ERISA § 204(b)(1)(H). After the Seventh Circuit’s
decision in Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan, 457 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2006), Chamberlain
was dismissed with prejudice. That case never advanced to the class certification stage.
The second lawsuit was Edward Sunder and Louis Jarodsky v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan,
Case No. 4:05-CV-1153-ERW (E.D. Mo.). That lawsuit, brought on behalf of Sunder and
Jarodsky, made several allegations including that USBPP used an inappropriately high discount
rate when calculating opening cash balances in the January 1, 1999 amendment. The District
Court on summary judgment dismissed all claims but the claim of an inappropriately high
discount rate when setting opening balances, and it found for the Plaintiffs on this claim. USBPP
appealed and the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court, finding that USBPP set the opening
balances consistently with ERISA. Sunder v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan, 586 F.3d 593 (8th Cir.
2009).
After the District Court decision in Sunder, the putative class action Pellett v. U.S. Bank
Pension Plan, Case No. 4:07-CV-1683 (E.D. Mo.) was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri.
Pellett claimed only that USBPP used an unfairly high interest rate in setting opening balances.
While the Sunder case was awaiting decision in the Eighth Circuit, the putative class action of
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #2027
12881476.1
3
Mezyk v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan, Case No. 3:09-CV-384-JPG-DJW was filed in the Southern
District of Illinois, making a variety of claims concerning the January 1, 1999 plan amendment.
Pellett and Mezyk later were consolidated in the Southern District of Illinois under the name of
Mezyk and an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
On February 11, 2011, the Court certified two different classes on different claims
brought by the Plaintiffs in Mezyk, one of which was a class of all participants as of January 1,
1999 who allegedly did not receive sufficient notice of the plan amendment in alleged violation
of ERISA § 204(h) and ERISA § 102. After much additional discovery, Plaintiffs have filed a
second amended consolidated complaint keeping the notice allegation, adding a claim of
miscalculation of opening balances for those ages 45-49 at the time of the calculation, and
dropping other claims. The first allegation concerns the same alleged lack of notice concerning
the January 1, 1999 plan amendment which allegedly did not meet the terms of either ERISA
§ 204(h) or ERISA § 102, on which a class already has been certified. This certification needs to
be slightly modified. The second claim, which is new, is that the opening balances for those ages
45 through 49 at the time of the opening balance calculation were not performed in accordance
with the plan’s terms.
The parties have been litigating these matters now for five years. All seven named
Plaintiffs have been deposed as have the plan’s record keeper, Mercantile’s head of pension
administration and also a member of Mercantile’s Human Resources Department who was
involved in the 1999 amendment. Plaintiffs have engaged three expert witnesses (two actuaries
and one communications expert) and Defendants have engaged one expert, an actuary. All four
experts have issued their reports in this matter. Defendants have taken the deposition of all three
of Plaintiffs’ experts. Defendants have produced tens of thousands of pages of paper and
numerous electronic spreadsheets in response to requests made by Plaintiffs.
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #2028
12881476.1
4
In this fifth year of the litigation, the parties conducted a mediation in Atlanta, Georgia,
on April 24, 2012. As a result of discussions that day and following, the Parties have reached
this settlement. The settlement will involve the following proposed classes:
1) “Class One” includes all plan participants in the MercantileBancorporation Inc. Retirement Plan as of January 1, 1999.Excluded from this class are Edward W. Sunder III; Louis R.Jarodsky; Eileen Chamberlain; Defendants’ legal counsel(including members of Defendants’ legal department); and anyjudge assigned to this case and any member of such judge’simmediate family.
2) “Class Two” includes all plan participants in the MercantileBancorporation Inc. Retirement Plan that were participants in theplan as of January 1, 1999 and who were between the ages of 4549 on the date an opening balance was calculated for their cashbalance accounts. Excluded from this class are Edward W. SunderIII; Louis R. Jarodsky; Eileen Chamberlain; Defendants’ legalcounsel (including members of Defendants’ legal department); andany judge assigned to this case and any member of such judge’simmediate family.
Plaintiffs have requested that these proposed classes be certified under either Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1) or (b)(2).
Under the proposed settlement, USBPP will pay nine million six hundred thousand
dollars ($9,600,000) into a common fund for settlement. (Settlement Agreement, § 7.2.2) From
this common fund, the seven Class Representatives will each be paid five thousand dollars
($5,000.00) for recognition of the time and expense they have put into the Lawsuit to prosecute
it. (Id. at §§ 7.2.3 and 7.2.8) Class Counsel will make application to the Court for 27.5% of the
common fund for their attorney fees. The amount of the request will be two million six hundred
forty thousand dollars ($2,640,000.00). (Id. at § 7.2.4) In this application, Class Counsel will
also seek reimbursement of expenses to prosecute this litigation, up to a maximum of two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00). (Id. at § 7.2.5)
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #2029
12881476.1
5
The remaining amounts will be distributed to the proposed class members as follows.
Members of Class Two will receive the amounts shown in exhibit A to the proposed Settlement
Agreement from the common fund, which represent the difference between how their opening
cash balances were calculated and how the Plan required them to be calculated, plus interest
added through June 30, 2012. In the aggregate, these amounts add up to eight hundred nineteen
thousand four hundred ninety six dollars and forty four cents ($819,496.44). (Id. at § 7.2.9)
There are approximately 748 members of Class Two. The amount remaining in the common
fund after the distribution to Class Two will be distributed per capita to each member of Class
One. (Id. at § 7.2.10) The amount left for distribution from the common fund to members of
Class One will be approximately $5,900,000.00 to $6,100,000.00 if the Court approves
distribution from the common fund as described in Section 7 of the proposed Settlement
Agreement. (Id.)
If, after 180 days of reasonable effort to locate Class Members (which shall start to run
once the payment has been wired under the terms of Section 7.2.1 of the proposed Settlement
Agreement), the Notice Administrator cannot locate any class member, the amounts left over
from distribution described in Sections 7.2.9 and 7.2.10 will be contributed to the Land of
Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Incorporated. (Id. at § 7.2.11)
In exchange for the benefits outlined above, the Plaintiffs and proposed class members
agree to release all claims, known or unknown, by or on behalf of any or all Class Members, for
any type of relief against the USBPP Releasees (as that term is defined in Section 7.1.23 of the
proposed Settlement Agreement), including for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, equitable
relief, restitution, damages, unpaid costs, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages,
interest, attorney fees, litigation costs, or any other monetary remedy, as well as relief of any
kind based on any and all claims which have been or could have been asserted in this litigation.
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #2030
12881476.1
6
The Plaintiffs and proposed class members also agree to fully, finally and forever release,
dismiss with prejudice, relinquish and discharge all claims, known or unknown, for any type of
relief against the U.S. Bancorp Releasees (as that term is defined in Section 7.1.25 of the
proposed Settlement Agreement) through the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, but
only in their capacity as a “plan sponsor” or plan “administrator” as those terms are defined in 29
U.S.C. §§ 1002(16)(A) and (B), or as a “fiduciary” as that term is mentioned in 29 U.S.C.
§ 1104. The release includes claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, equitable relief,
restitution, damages, unpaid costs, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest,
attorney fees, litigation costs, or any other monetary remedy, as well as of any kind based on any
and all claims which have been or could have been asserted in this litigation. (Id. at § 8.1.1)
III. ARGUMENT
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), this Settlement Agreement must be approved by the Court.
Review and approval of a class action settlement involves two steps: (1) the Court preliminarily
approves the proposed settlement and directs notices to the class for comment and (2) the Court
holds a final hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (7th Cir. 1980)
(overruled on other grounds by Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998)); In re AT&T
Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 330, 345-346 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
During the first step of the relevant inquiry, the court holds a pre-notification hearing to
determine whether the proposed settlement is “within the range of possible approval.”
Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 314. “This hearing is not a fairness hearing; its purpose, rather, is to
ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement and
to proceed with a fairness hearing.” Id. (citing MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 1.46, at 53-
55 (West 1977)). “If the district court finds a settlement proposal ‘within the range of possible
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #2031
12881476.1
7
approval,’ it then proceeds to the second step in the review process, the fairness hearing. Class
members are notified of the proposed settlement and of the fairness hearing at which they and all
interested parties have an opportunity to be heard.” Id.
“In deciding whether to preliminarily approve a settlement, courts must consider: (1) the
strength of plaintiffs' case compared to the terms of the proposed settlement; (2) the likely
complexity, length and expense of continued litigation; (3) the amount of opposition to
settlement among effected parties; (4) the opinion of competent counsel; and (5) the stage of the
proceedings and the amount of discovery completed.” Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express
(USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 652 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191, 1196 (7th
Cir. 1996)). Although the “fair, reasonable, and adequate” standard and the factors used to
measure it are ultimately questions for the fairness hearing that comes after a court finds that a
proposed settlement is within approval range, “a more summary version of the same inquiry
takes place at the preliminary phase.” Kessler v. American Resorts International's Holiday
Network, Ltd., 2007 WL 4105204, *5 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2007) (citing Armstrong, 616 F.2d at
314).
In this Joint Motion, the parties submit that the requirements for preliminary approval are
satisfied, and they ask that the Court direct the mailing of the class notice and schedule a fairness
hearing.
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #2032
12881476.1
8
A. The Court Should Grant The Parties’ Joint Motion For PreliminaryApproval Of The Settlement Agreement.
The Court should preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement in this case because it
is within the range of reasonableness and does not evidence unduly preferential treatment or
other obvious deficiencies.
“Federal courts naturally favor the settlement of class action litigation.” Isby, 75 F.3d at
1196. The proposed Settlement Agreement contemplates USBPP paying nine million six
hundred thousand dollars ($9,600,000) into a common fund for settlement. (Settlement
Agreement, § 7.2.2) This sum is significant considering that the claims in this litigation are
vigorously contested, as established by the expert reports of James Turpin (on of Plaintiffs’
actuaries) and Lawrence Sher (USBPP’s actuary), which have been attached to this Joint Motion
as Exhibit B. Considering the asserted claims and defenses of the parties, the problems of proof,
and the risks and delays of litigation, this sum clearly represents an amount “within the range of
reasonableness.”
The proposed Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arms length by adversarial and
informed parties with the assistance of experienced counsel. (See Doc. 96, appointing class
counsel) Preliminary settlement discussions commenced in January 2012, following five years
of vigorously contested litigation and extensive discovery, during which tens of thousands of
documents were exchanged and key witnesses relevant to the litigation were deposed. In the
course of settlement discussions, USBPP provided detailed actuarial data to the Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ counsel and their actuaries, allowing them to assess the merits of their claims and the
potential damages. Ultimately, after engaging in a formal mediation in Atlanta, Georgia, on
April 24, 2012 and subsequent discussions, the parties reached agreement to resolve this
litigation.
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #2033
12881476.1
9
There can be no question that, if the agreed upon settlement is not consummated, the
parties face a long, complex and expensive litigation. Five years after Pellett was filed, the
parties have only recently completed expert discovery, and Plaintiffs have just filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint, which may require further discovery and further motion
practice (and possible appeals) related to class certification. Summary judgment briefing, trial
and multiple levels of appeals, which could add several years to the litigation, are also likely.
The proposed Settlement Agreement, which was negotiated by the parties to a highly
adversarial lawsuit, clearly is not the result of illegality or collusion. There is currently no
opposition to the settlement, which is fair and reasonable in the opinion of counsel for Plaintiffs
and USBPP. The requirements for preliminary approval are met and the Court should grant the
Joint Motion.
B. The Court Should Approve The Parties’ Proposed Form And Method OfNotice Of The Class Settlement.
Once the Court makes a determination that a proposed settlement is within the range of
reasonableness, notice of a formal Rule 23(e) hearing is given to class members. MANUAL ON
COMPLEX LITIGATION (4TH) § 21.633. The notice of the fairness hearing should advise objectors
to file written statements of their objections by a specified date in advance of the hearing and to
give notice if they intend to appear at the fairness hearing. Id.
The parties have agreed on the content and method of the proposed notice. The Class
Notice explains the nature of the controversy, the details of the Settlement Agreement, the
eligibility of class members to participate in the settlement, and their right to object to it.
(Attached as Exhibit A) The Class Notice will be mailed to all class members via first class mail
to their last known addresses (Settlement Agreement, § 9.3.1), which is proper under the
circumstances. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 175 (1974) (individual notice
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #2034
12881476.1
10
via U.S. Mail preferred where possible); see also MANUAL ON COMPLEX LITIGATION (4TH)
§ 21.311 (same).
The Court should approve the form and method of notice to the classes.
C. The Parties Request The Court To Schedule A Final Fairness Hearing.
In the proposed Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to endeavor in good faith
to meet several targeted deadlines. (Settlement Agreement, § 9.2) To meet the deadlines, the
parties propose the schedule set forth at page 13 of the proposed Settlement Agreement,
culminating in a Settlement Hearing in October 2012. (Id.)
The parties request the Court to schedule:
-A hearing on this Joint Motion for preliminary approval and on Plaintiffs’renewed motion for class certification on June 13, 2012 (or such other time theCourt sets);
-A deadline for filing objections to the Settlement Agreement on August 7, 2012;
-A deadline for parties to file briefs objecting to or in favor of final approval ofthe Settlement Agreement on September 10, 2012; and
-A fairness hearing on the Settlement Agreement on October 2, 2012 (or suchother time the Court sets).
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #2035
12881476.1
11
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court (i) preliminarily
approve the Settlement Agreement; (ii) approve the proposed Class Notice and the mailing
thereof; and (iii) set a date for a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David L. SteelmanDavid L. SteelmanSteelman, Gaunt & Horsefield901 Pine Street, Suite 110Rolla, MO 65402(573) [email protected]
Matthew ArmstrongArmstrong Law Firm LLC8816 Manchester Road, No. 109St. Louis, MO 63144(314) [email protected]
Co-Class Counsel
/s/ Gregory Parker RogersGregory Parker RogersRyan M. MartinTaft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957(513) [email protected]@taftlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #2036
12881476.1
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 5, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Motion For
Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement And Proposed Class Notice with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
David L. [email protected]
Matthew H. [email protected]
Matthew H. [email protected]
Ryan M. [email protected]
Mary M. [email protected]
/s/ Gregory Parker RogersGregory Parker RogersTaft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957(513) [email protected]
Case 3:09-cv-00384-JPG-DGW Document 135 Filed 06/05/12 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #2037