Hursh v. DST Sys.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-09019-NKL,4:21-09023-NKL,4:21-09033-NKL,4:21-09035-NKL,4:21-09036-NKL,4:21-09038-NKL,4:21-09046-NKL,4:21-09017-NKL,4:21-09047-NKL,4:21-09052-NKL,4:21-09080-NKL,4:21-09082-NKL,4:21-09083-NKL,4:21-09086-NKL,4:21-00705-NKL,4:21-09079-NKL,4:21-09090-NKL,4:21-09091-NKL,4:21-09092-NKL,4:21-09094-NKL,4:21-09097-NKL,4:21-09105-NKL,4:21-09106-NKL,4:21-09107-NKL,4:21-09108-NKL,4:21-09113-NKL,4:21-09114-NKL,4:21-09120-NKL,4:21-09125-NKL,4:21-09126-NKL,4:21-09127-NKL,4:21-09129- NKL,4:21-09130-NKL,4:21-09139-NKL,4:21-09140-NKL,4:21-09141-NKL,4:21-09144-NKL,4:21-09152-NKL,4:21-09155-NKL,4:21-09158-NKL,4:21-09159-NKL,4:21-09133-NKL,4:21-09164-NKL,4:21-09137-NKL,4:21-9168-NKL,4:21-9170-NKL,4:21-9174-NKL,4:21-9177-NKL,4:21-9181-NKL,4:21-9184-NKL,4:21-9185-NKL,4:21-9186-NKL,4:21-9195-NKL,4:21-9196-NKL,4:21-9198-NKL |
| Parties | THERESA HURSH, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JASON HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MELODY MISER, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. LISA KUDRICK, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JANET KANNARD, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. VANESSA BROSS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. SCOTT YUNGEBERG, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KELLY HIGHFILL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KOLE SCARBROUGH, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JASON SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. BRUCE ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KRISTY HILL REVIS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. TINA CAREY, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. ROB BERKSTRESSER, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. NICK RUTKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. DENNIS DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JEFF CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JAMES DUCHARME, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JAMES ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KEVIN MOLL Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. LEANN GARVEY, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JOHN MCCONNELL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. TOM COULTER, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. PHILIP NEFF, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. ROBERT SHEEDERS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MITCH VANKAM, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JOHN SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JOAN HORAN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JEFF HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. STEFAN KOLEV, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. DOUG STALCUP, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. SALLY SCHLINTZ, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. CHARLES SCHELL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. SHELLEY MCMULLIN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. BRENT LARSON, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. THERESA BYERS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. STEPHEN BAY, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JANICE CUBBAGE, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. PEGGY LEINEKE, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JUREE BARKLEY, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. TOM BUECHEL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KEVIN BOSTICK, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. ALICE WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. RODNEY KANE, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JACQUELINE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. DAVE LOVETERE, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. HARRY CROCKER, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. THOMAS EDLUND, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. ROBERT CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant MICHAEL GIRO, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant JILL MCMANUS NEWTAL, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. TRACY ALDEN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. PARMINDERJIT SINGH, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MARTHA SABIN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KATHLEEN SARETTE, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge Defendant and judgment debtor DST Systems, Inc. moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. Doc 56.[1] For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for Stay is DENIED.
On March 31, 2023, this Court entered an order that, inter alia, confirmed arbitration awards in favor of the 55 plaintiffs (the “Judgment Creditors”) in the cases captioned above and entered a final judgment in each case. Docs. 45, 46.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, “from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded.” Doc. 47.
The Court scheduled oral argument on that motion the very same day. Doc. 48.
At oral argument, judgment debtor DST stated that it was “on the cusp of submitting a settlement in the class actions to the Southern District of New York later this week.” Doc. 51, Tr. 5:11-13.
DST opposed the proposed injunction because it would “enjoin all the parties to that [class action] from filing that settlement agreement with” the class action court. Id., Tr. 6:4-6. The Court questioned DST's characterization:
Later in the oral argument, DST asserted that, because the Ferguson class counsel represent the class members' interest in their ERISA claims, they can compromise on behalf of class members the Judgment Creditors' judgments against DST. See, for example, the following exchange:
Id., Tr. 10:8-22. The Court pointed out that class counsel represent Ferguson plaintiffs with respect to ERISA claims, and not the arbitration awards, but DST insisted that they are one and the same, as if, even without any order of an appellate court to that effect, this Court's judgment is simply a nullity. Id., Tr. 9:3-5.
Finally, DST expressly acknowledged that it intended to interfere with this Court's judgments in favor of the Judgment Creditors by agreeing with the Ferguson class counsel to “compromise” those judgments and the final, binding arbitration awards, without the Judgment Creditors' consent, to obtain a class settlement:
Considering DST's stated intention to immediately seek approval of a settlement that would address not only the ERISA claims but also would compromise the Judgment Creditors' judgments without their consent, Id., Tr. 10:7-13, the Court acted quickly to maintain the status quo pending review by the Eighth Circuit. Deeming time to be of the essence, the Court entered the injunction in the form of a text order that very same day, April 10, 2023, as follows:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The Court has considered the Dataphase factors and, based on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial