Amara v. CIGNA Corp, et al
Case Number: 3:2001cv02361
Filed: December 19, 2001
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
Presiding Judge: Mark R. Kravitz
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 606 ORDER denying 591 Motion for Accounting. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/6/20. (Gutierrez, A.)
January 10, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 588 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 580 Motion for Reconsideration of 579 Enforcement Order. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/10/20. (Gutierrez, A.)
August 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 579 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' 571 Motion to Enforce Judgment. The Court directs Defendants to pay small benefit cashouts to participants who have not received their Part B cash balance accounts as promptly as possible and denies the Motion in all other respects. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply 575 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/16/2019. (Kolker, J.)
November 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 555 ORDER: As set forth in the attached ruling, the Court orders that Class Counsel shall be awarded attorney's fees and litigation expenses, excluding expert witness fees and future projected expenses. Defendants shall begin implementing the A+B re medy as quickly as possible. Within 30 days of this ruling, the parties must exchange their individual results for each class member for inclusion in Plaintiffs' website benefit statement and in Cigna's mailed notices. Cigna must mail these notices within 60 days of this ruling, and then pay any past due lump sums and back benefits no later than 30 days thereafter. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/29/18. (Kolker, J.)
October 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 550 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, the Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposed interest rate and age assumption methodologies for the purpose of calculating the net present value of the remedy award and calculating the attorneys& #039; fees to which Plaintiffs may potentially be entitled, and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion 545 for Leave to File Declaration. Defendant shall provide the Court with an updated net present value calculation in accordance with this Order by Wednesday, November 7, 2018. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/17/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Correspondence from the Parties) (Kolker, J.)
November 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 517 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Plaintiffs' Motion 508 for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/7/17. (Kolker, J.)
January 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 485 Ruling on Plaintiff Class's Objections to Cigna's Revised 204(h) Notices. Plaintiffs' Objections 464 are sustained in part and denied in part. Ruling on Proposed Methodology 459 is amended accordingly. Amended Ruling to follow. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/10/17.(Tooker, A.)
December 20, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 378 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION granting relief to Plaintiffs, denying Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class 323 , and denying as moot the parties Joint Motion for Status Conference 376 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/20/2012. (Lake, G.)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Amara v. CIGNA Corp, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?