Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
| Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, CentraCare Health System, Supplemental Benefit Committee of the International Truck and Engine Corp. Retiree Supplemental Benefit Trust, Jerome Foundation, Meijer, Inc., Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc., North Memorial Health Care, The Order of Saint Benedict and The Twin Cities Hospitals-Minnesota Nurses Association Pension Plan Committee |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |
| 0:2011cv02529 |
| September 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Stearns |
| Donovan W. Frank |
| Jeanne J. Graham |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
696
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1. Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 692 ) is DENIED. 2. To the extent that the Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment (Doc. No. 640 ) was inconsistent with this Memorandum O pinion and Order and the March 14, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 677 ) on the issue of waiver of collateral estoppel of the jury verdict as to the ERISA Plaintiffs' claims, the Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Or der for Judgment is VACATED. 3. Within 30 days of this order, the parties will submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the ERISA Plaintiffs claims. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law should include appropri ate citations to the record. 4. The parties will also meet and confer on a briefing schedule on the appropriate measure of damages as outlined in Wells Fargo's March 28, 2017 letter (Doc. No. 683 ). The Court reserves the right to hear argument on the issue.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/8/2017. (BJS) Modified text on 6/8/2017 (ACH).
|
|
Filing
690
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendant's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 684 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendant may file a motion for reconsideration consistent with this order no later than May 5, 2017; b. Defendant may file, also by May 5, 2017, a brief in support of their motion for reconsideration of no more than 10 pages; c. Plaintiffs may file a responsive brief of no more than 10 pages by May 12, 2017; d. If the Co urt determines a hearing is necessary, it will contact the parties to schedule such a hearing; and e. The Court respectfully denies Defendants request for reconsideration as to any other issues. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/13/2017. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
640
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT. 1. Plaintiffs WITHDREW their Negligent Misrepresentation claim during the jury trial. As such, Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 200 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. On August 8, 2013, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Defendant on each of the following counts: Count I(a) (Breach of Fiduciary Duty Non-ERISA); Count II (Breach of Contract); Count III (Intentional Fraud); Count V (Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act); and Count VI (Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act). (Doc. No. 557 .) As such, Count I(a), Count II, Count III, Count V, and Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 200 ) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Count I(b) (Breach of Fid uciary Duty ERISA) and Count VII (Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act) were tried to the Court. For the reasons described above, the Court now finds in favor of Defendant on Count I(b) and Count VII. As such, Count I(b) and Count VII of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 200 ) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/2/2014. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
485
ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Declaration of Trust (Doc. No. 316 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (see Order for details). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/14/2013. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
475
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Wells Fargo's Motion for Bench Trial of ERISA and Non-ERISA Fiduciary Duty Claims (Doc. No. 297 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. To the extent Wells Fargo seeks a bench trial of Plaintiffs 9; ERISA fiduciary duty claim (Count I(b)), the motion is GRANTED. 2. To the extent Wells Fargo seeks a bench trial of Plaintiffs' non-ERISA fiduciary duty claim (Count I(a)), the motion is DENIED. 3. The Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposal for trial of this matter. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/4/2013. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER. 1. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 17, 2012 order (Doc. No. 203 ) and September 27, 2012 order (Doc. No. 209 ) are AFFIRMED and 2. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Objections to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 17, 2012 order and September 27, 2012 order (Doc. No. 210 ) are OVERRULED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/9/2012. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER affirming Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's May 31, 2012 Order 113 . (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 07/05/2012. (rlb)
|
|
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 41 ) is DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/18/2012. (BJS)
|
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
