Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Defendants, Hilton Hotels, filed a motion seeking a stay pending appeal of the Court's order mandating amendments to their Retirement Plan to comply with ERISA, specifically its anti-backloading provisions. The Court's order required implementation of these changes and commencement of back payments and increased benefits by January 1, 2012. The Defendants attempted to expedite the briefing process for their motion without the Plaintiff's prior consultation, violating Local Civil Rule 7(m). The Court partially granted a temporary stay, allowing time for briefing while denying the expedited treatment and additional financial disclosures requested by the Plaintiff. The Court set a new briefing schedule, permitting the Plaintiff until December 22, 2011, to file an opposition, with the Defendants' reply due by December 30, 2011. The stay will remain until thirty days post-decision on the Defendants' motion or until a supersedeas bond is posted. The Court found no immediate need for further financial disclosure from Hilton, placing the burden on Defendants to demonstrate solvency to justify the stay without a bond. The Court's decision allows Hilton time to prepare for potential changes or seek further recourse from the Court of Appeals if necessary. An accompanying order and a separate ruling on a motion to seal will follow this opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance with Local Civil Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendants violated Local Civil Rule 7(m) by seeking expedited briefing on their motion without prior consultation with the Plaintiff.
Reasoning: Defendants sought an expedited briefing on their motion without prior consultation with the Plaintiff, violating Local Civil Rule 7(m).
Court's Discretion in Setting Briefing Schedulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court denied the Defendants' request for expedited briefing due to the complexity of the case and established a new briefing schedule.
Reasoning: Regarding the briefing schedule, the Court finds no need to shorten it due to the complexities of the case and allows Plaintiff until December 22, 2011, to file an opposition, with Defendants' reply due by December 30, 2011, without further extensions.
Motion for Stay Pending Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendants sought a stay of the Court's order that required amendments to their Retirement Plan and implementation of back payments and increased benefits.
Reasoning: Defendants, Hilton Hotels, filed a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal regarding the Court's August 31, 2011, Order, which mandated that Hilton amend its Retirement Plan to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), specifically addressing anti-backloading provisions.
Requirements for Financial Disclosure in Stay Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court denied the Plaintiff's request for additional financial disclosures, citing insufficient justification for the relevance of the additional materials requested.
Reasoning: The Plaintiff did not adequately justify the inadequacy of the information provided or explain the relevance of the additional requested materials.
Temporary Stay of Court Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court granted a temporary stay on certain provisions of its previous order, allowing time for briefing and potential appeals.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Court has decided to temporarily stay the portions of its August 31, 2011 order that require Defendants to amend the Plan and provide back payments and benefits to participants by January 1, 2012.