Doe
Doe v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Birotte, J.
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CLARIFY AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF BENEFITS, FEES, AND COSTS
Before the Court is Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America’s (“Prudential”) Motion for Clarification and/or Modification (Dkt. No. 98) and Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion for. Entry of Judgment, Award of Benefits, Prejudgment Interest, Attorneys’ Fees, and Costs of Suit (Dkt. No. 99). Oppositions and replies were filed with respect to both Motions. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both Motions.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an action for .benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 , et seq. Following a bench trial, on March 27, 2017, the Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in Plaintiffs favor, finding that Prudential improperly terminated his long-term disability benefits, and ordering Prudential to reinstate them. See Order (Dkt. No. 89). The instant- motions follow. The Court will address them in turn.
II. PRUDENTIAL’S MOTION , TO CLARIFY/MODIFY
Prudential points out that two terms of the Order’s declaratory and injunctive relief are inconsistent with…