Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retire

Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 1998-1517

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; December 1, 2011; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants, Hilton Hotels, have filed a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal regarding the Court’s August 31, 2011 Order, which mandates Hilton to amend its Retirement Plan to comply with ERISA’s anti-backloading provision and to make back payments to participants by January 1, 2012. In response to the Court's directive to establish a briefing schedule, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Temporary Stay alongside a proposed schedule, while Defendants suggested an expedited briefing timeline. The Court partially granted Plaintiff's motion, imposing a temporary stay on specific sections of the August 31 Order until the decision on Defendants’ Motion or until a Court-approved bond is posted by Defendants. The Court accepted Plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule but denied both Defendants' request for an expedited timeline and Plaintiff's request for additional financial disclosures from Defendants. Prior to filing their motion, Defendants did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7(m) by failing to confer with Plaintiff, prompting the Court to require the parties to negotiate a schedule.

A temporary stay of certain provisions from the Court’s August 31, 2011 Order is proposed to allow sufficient time for briefing on Defendants’ Motion. The Court agrees to a stay that extends until the Court rules on the motion, rather than just until the briefing is completed. While Defendants are solely appealing backloading issues, they seek a broader stay that includes the payment of benefits to newly vested Plan participants, which may be affected by the resolution of attorney’s fees. Consequently, the Court will stay specific provisions of the Order, including Hilton's obligation to amend the Plan and payments to both newly and previously vested Plan participants. Hilton must continue scheduled payments to previously vested participants under the existing Plan terms. The stay will last until thirty days post-decision on Defendants’ Motion or until a supersedeas bond is posted and approved. This approach allows adequate time for both parties to prepare while ensuring Hilton can meet any necessary amendments should the Court deny the motion.

In terms of the briefing schedule, the Court finds it unnecessary to expedite the timeline due to the complexity of the issues. Plaintiff's opposition is due by December 22, 2011, and Defendants’ reply by December 30, 2011, with no further extensions permitted. Additionally, Plaintiff's request for Hilton to re-file its motion with supporting financial documents is denied; however, Defendants will provide additional materials concerning increased Plan funding requirements.

Plaintiff did not adequately explain the insufficiency of information provided or the relevance of additional materials requested. Hilton is responsible for submitting sufficient evidence to demonstrate its solvency to justify a stay without a bond or with the bond amount sought by Defendants. Defendants risk that the Court may find their motion insufficient, potentially denying the stay or requiring a larger bond. The Court will not compel Hilton to produce documents to fulfill its own burden. 

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 increased benefits by January 1, 2012. This stay will last until thirty days after the Court decides on Defendants’ motion to stay the order pending appeal or until Defendants post a supersedeas bond as ordered or approved by the Court. In light of the complexity of the issues and reduced urgency, the Court will follow the briefing schedule proposed by Plaintiff, denying Defendants’ request for expedited briefing and Plaintiff’s request for additional financial information from Defendants. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.