Kraft Foods v. Retail Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, CASE NUMBER 11 C 6498

• Decision Date: 30 March 2012
• Docket Number: CASE NUMBER 11 C 6498
• Parties: Kraft Foods v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Kraft Foods

v.Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union

CASE NUMBER 11 C 6498

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

DATE March 30, 2012

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Blanche M. Manning

Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The court has considered the submissions of the Retirees, who filed amicus curiae filings after being granted leave to do so, as well as plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global and Kraft Foods Global Retiree Medical Plan. It finds that the plaintiffs have standing to proceed with the instant declaratory judgment action, Kraft's 2011 changes to medical coverages for retirees provided by the Plan did not violate any of the applicable CBAs, and the CBAs did not give the Retirees a vested right to a lifetime of unchangeable medical benefits. A declaratory judgment to this effect is hereby entered. Thus, the motion for default judgment filed by Kraft and the Plan [14] is granted. The clerk is directed to enter a Rule 58 judgment and terminate this case from the court's docket.

[] [ For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT

Background

Plaintiff Kraft Foods Global is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. Plaintiff Kraft Foods Global Retiree Medical Plan is an ERISA welfare benefits plan administered by Kraft in Illinois. The Plan offers retiree medical coverage to certain Kraft retirees, their eligible dependents and surviving spouses.

Kraft owned and operated a cereal manufacturing plant in Battle Creek, Michigan for several decades until it sold the plant in 2008. While Kraft was operating the plant, hourly-paid production and maintenance employees employed there were represented by defendant United Cereal, Bakery and Foodworkers Local 374 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (the "Local Union"), which in turn was an affiliate of defendant Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union UFCW CLC (the "National Union") (collectively, "the Unions").

In early 2011, Kraft changed certain retiree benefits. Affected retirees who believe that a series of collective bargaining agreements between the Local Union and Kraft and its predecessors (the "Retirees") prevent Kraft from altering their benefits filed a federal action against Kraft in the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District of Michigan. See Battle Creek Chapter of Local 374 Retirees v. Kraft Foods Global, No. 11 976. Two days later, Kraft and the Plan filed suit against the Unions in this district.

Unbeknownst to this court, after Kraft filed the Illinois action, both the Retirees and Kraft promptly sought relief from the Michigan court. Specifically, the Retirees asked the Michigan court to enjoin this court from proceeding with Kraft's Illinois declaratory judgment and Kraft filed a motion to stay the Michigan case in favor of the Illinois case. The Michigan court denied both motions. In the meantime, the defendant Unions in the case pending before this court failed to answer or otherwise plead. Accordingly, default was entered against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)

Kraft and the Plan then filed a motion for default judgment in this case seeking a declaratory judgment that:

1. [Kraft was] not prohibited by contract or law from implementing the 2011 changes to medical coverages for retirees provided by the Plan;

2. [Kraft] did not violate the law or any contract by implementing the 2011 changes to medical coverages for retirees provided by the Plan; and

3. The Retirees from the Battle Creek Plant do not have a vested right to a lifetime of unchangeable medical benefits.

Dkt. 14 at PageID#103.

At this point, the case veered from the procedural norm as the plaintiffs from the Michigan case (the "Retirees") sought leave to file an amicus brief in this case opposing the entry of default judgment. They acknowledged that they would not be bound by a default judgment entered in this case but nevertheless voiced a concern that Kraft would raise res judicata in the Michigan case. They also contended that the alleged dispute between Kraft/the Plan/the Unions in this action failed to present an actual case or controversy because the Retirees, not the Unions, would be affected by a judgment entered by this court. Finally, they asserted that even if standing was proper, the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction because the case pending before this court is an improper attempt to forum shop. The court allowed the Retirees to file the amicus brief and set a briefing schedule allowing Kraft and the Plan to file a response and the Retirees to file a reply. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

Discussion

The court begins by noting that the Retirees appear to be attempting to have it both ways. On the one hand, they state that they will not be affected by a judgment entered in this case and are merely voicing their opinion as a friend of the court because Kraft and the Plan are acting improperly. See Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) ("The term 'amicus curiae' means friend of the court, not friend of a party" and is generally proper "when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that thelawyers for the parties are able to provide"). On the other hand, they claim that entry of a default judgment in this case will unnecessarily complicate and delay the Michigan case and contend that the Illinois case is procedurally improper.

The court will set aside the parties' unnecessarily vituperative attacks on each other and consider the merits of the pending motion for a default judgment. With respect to Kraft and the Plan's standing to seek a declaratory judgment, the court must consider "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." Rock Energy Co-op. v. Village of Rockton, 614 F.3d 745, 748 (7th Cir. 2010), quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). This standard has indisputably been met as the Retirees filed suit against Kraft in Michigan based on the retiree health benefit issue raised in this case mere days before Kraft and the Plan filed this case.

The Retirees have presented no authority showing that they can seek to stay or dismiss this action by filing an amicus brief as...