IN RE AETNA UCR LITIGATION Civil Action No. 07-3541 (SRC), MDL No. 2020.
In re AETNA UCR LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL CASES.
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
April 15, 2013.
STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion filed by certain Subscriber Plaintiffs
The undersigned became the presiding judge over this action on June 2, 2011, after it was reassigned from the docket of another district judge. At that time, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed by Defendants had been fully briefed and argued and was awaiting decision. Upon reassignment, however, the parties jointly expressly to the undersigned a desire to pursue settlement negotiations and agreed that the Court should hold its decision on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in abeyance pending those settlement discussions. Accordingly, the undersigned did not consider the motion, and indeed, to date, that motion remains pending on the docket of this action. For the next year-and-a-half, the undersigned's involvement with this action was limited to periodic status conferences with the attorneys to confirm that the parties remained committed to attempting to reach an amicable resolution of this matter and wished to continue the informal stay of litigation. Those efforts ultimately proved to be fruitful, although certain of the Subscriber Plaintiffs opposed the settlement submitted for preliminary approval. (To be clear about identifying the various parties who have expressed their views on the recusal issue, the Court will refer to the "Settling Plaintiffs" and the "Non-Settling Plaintiffs.")
In the process of reviewing the motion for preliminary approval and preparing for oral argument, the undersigned realized that, were it not for the express exclusion, he and his wife could be considered absent members of the putative class. He investigated further and compared the Settlement Class definition with the definition set forth in the operative Complaint, which did not exclude judges and their relatives. Upon this realization, the Court immediately, and on the record, disclosed the following information to the parties, who were gathered in the undersigned's courtroom for the purpose of arguing the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement: From the time this case was reassigned to the undersigned judge through December 31, 2012, the undersigned's wife had maintained health insurance through an Aetna ERISA plan offered by her employer. The Aetna plan provided the undersigned with secondary coverage, as at all relevant times the undersigned subscribed to his own health benefits plan with the Government Employees Health Association, through his employment with the United States District Court.
In addition to making these disclosures regarding his wife's Aetna health plan, the undersigned also renounced, on the record, any interest, right and/or claim he or his wife, who had expressly authorized him to speak on her behalf, might have in the subject matter of this lawsuit. The record states:
(Jan. 23, 2013 Hearing Tr. at 5-6.) The undersigned also noted that he and his wife were excluded from the Settlement Class.
While Settling Plaintiffs and Aetna wished to proceed on the motion for preliminary approval, the Court considered it prudent to refrain from entertaining that motion until the parties had a meaningful opportunity to consider the information disclosed by the undersigned. Indeed, Non-Settling Plaintiffs requested such an opportunity to determine how to proceed. Thereafter, they filed the instant motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455.
Non-Settling Plaintiffs take the position that, although the undersigned and his wife are not members of the Settlement Class and have affirmatively waived any claim they may have against Aetna related to this controversy, the undersigned is nevertheless disqualified from presiding over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(4). Section 455(a) requires a judge to recuse himself from "any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Under § 455(b)(4), a judge must recuse himself if [h]e knows that he, . . . or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).
Non-Settling Plaintiffs emphasize that while one generally knows, and could be expected to know, the identity of his or her insurance carrier, the undersigned failed to disclose his Aetna coverage and divest himself of any claims until almost 20 months after he was assigned this action. They argue that while the undersigned stated that the fact of that coverage "all of a sudden hit [the undersigned]" upon review of the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, he knew or must have known of this coverage long before the disclosure, presumably upon his affirmative election to acquire coverage under his wife's plan. Moreover, Non-Settling Plaintiffs stress that apart from the reasonable inference of actual knowledge at or near the time of his assignment to this action on June 2, 2011, the judge should have known, as required by § 455(c), about his and his wife's financial interest in the Aetna plan. They cite to this provision of the recusal statute, which imposes an affirmative duty on judges "to stay informed of any personal or fiduciary financial interest they may have in cases over which they preside."
In sum, Non-Settling Plaintiffs maintain that because of the judge's actual or imputed knowledge of a disqualifying interest existing for 20 months, an objective observer might harbor doubts about the undersigned's impartiality, requiring the judge's recusal under § 455(a).
The undersigned concludes that it is clear that he and his spouse were, until the January 23, 2013 divestiture, members of the putative class. During at least some portion of the relevant time period, that is, the period in which Aetna determined ONET benefits using Ingenix data, the judge and his wife received health benefits under an Aetna ERISA plan. As such, they had a financial interest in this action, triggering the undersigned's obligation to recuse under § 455(b)(4).
The Court notes that the recusal statute also provides a mechanism, under § 455(f), which authorizes a judge to cure the disqualifying interest and thereby eliminate the recusal obligation. The parties opposing this motion have argued that the undersigned validly exercised that authority when he renounced his and his wife's interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit. Section 455(f) provides as follows:
28 U.S.C. § 455(f). This provision formed the basis of the decision not to recuse, in spite of two appellate judges' membership in a class, in the case of
Here, in contrast, the undersigned has not devoted substantial time or effort to the case. Though the case had been on the undersigned's docket for over a year-and-a-half before the realization that, as Aetna insureds who had made ONET claims, the judge and his wife were putative class members, the undersigned's involvement in the action was, to put it plainly, minimal. By design and by the parties' express agreement to pursue mediation rather than move the litigation forward, the undersigned made no substantive decisions or even considered any aspect of this action, other than basic housekeeping, during that time. Moreover, the timing of the undersigned's realization of his and his wife's financial interest in the litigation distinguishes the recusal question presented in this action from the exercises of curative divestment found appropriate by the judges in the
Perhaps under different circumstances a recusal may have been avoided. However, upon this posture, where the undersigned has had a disqualifying interest for such a prolonged period of time and made a belated discovery on the presentation of the critical motion for preliminary certification of a Settlement Class, combined with the undersigned's performance of no substantive work on this action, the undersigned concludes that recusal under § 455(b)(4) is appropriate.
An appropriate Order will be filed, and the action will be reassigned by the Chief Judge for the District of New Jersey.
- No Cases Found