No. 04-2109
JERRY
TRULL,
Individually
and
as
representative of a class of all persons
similarly situated; FLOYD SUTTON, Individually
and as representative of a class of all
persons similarly situated; EARL JOHNSON,
Individually and as representative of a class
of all persons similarly situated; JOYCE
RIGGS, Individually and as representative of a
class of all persons similarly situated; DON
HENSON, Individually and as representative of
a class of all persons similarly situated;
RODERICK
ROGERS,
Individually
and
as
representative of a class of all persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED; DAYCO PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED
GROUP MEDICAL PLAN; MARK IV INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES GROUP WELFARE
BENEFIT PROGRAM,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 05-1591
JERRY
TRULL,
Individually
and
as
representative of a class of all persons
similarly situated; FLOYD SUTTON, Individually
and as representative of a class of all
persons similarly situated; EARL JOHNSON,
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-02-243-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, the defendants challenge two
injunctions barring their efforts at collecting health insurance
premiums from members of the plaintiff class.
to
lifetime
medical
insurance
created
by
series
of
affirm.
I.
The first injunction barred Defendants from seeking payment of
insurance premiums from a subclass of plaintiffs known as Subclass
A, generally consisting of employees who retired under agreements
prior to 1995 (the Subclass A Injunction).
We
reject
Defendants
argument
that
the
injunction
was
Because
plaintiffs
claims,
we
apply
the
most
analogous
Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 815 F.2d 975, 981 (4th Cir. 1987).
The
Ann. 2305.06;
see also Meade v. Pension Appeals & Review Comm., 966 F.2d 190,
194-95 (6th Cir. 1992).
8 F.3d 1121, 1127 (7th Cir. 1993) (concluding that [w]hen the law
of the United States is geographically non-uniform, a transferee
court should use the rule of the transferor forum) (quoting Van
Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639 (1964)).
We also disagree with Defendants contention that there was
insufficient evidence to support the jurys conclusion that the
Subclass
benefits.
plaintiffs
had
vested
entitlement
to
lifetime
courts
decision
that,
because
the
agreements
were
the closing of the Waynesville plant, the union and employees made
one exception to their waiver of claims against the company:
The only
companys
plan that
[N]othing
right
voluntarily
to
modify
undertaking
an
or
terminate
obligation
benefits
to
provide
by
vested,
Id. at 855
Id.
Having determined that the issue was properly sent to the jury
and having considered the evidence in the record, we conclude that
there is sufficient evidence to support the jurys decision that
the parties intended to create vested, lifetime benefits.
II.
The second injunction relates to a subclass of plaintiffs
known as Subclass B, generally consisting of employees who retired
7
The jury
necessary
or
appropriate
in
aid
of
their
respective
We disagree.
acting
to
safeguard
the
sanctity
of
previous
orders,
J.A.
collection
reimbursed.).
now
of
sums
which
may
only
have
to
be
Relations Litig., 315 F.3d 417, 437 (4th Cir. 2003); Scardelletti
v. Debarr, 265 F.3d 195, 211-13 (4th Cir. 2001), revd on other
grounds, 536 U.S. 1 (2002).
Likewise, we reject Defendants assertion that the district
court could not appoint a special master without their consent.
Defendants reliance on Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is misguided, as the district court appointed the special
master based on its inherent authority to fashion appropriate postverdict relief.
for
the
administration
of
justice
when
deemed
by
it
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
district court in No. 04-2109 and No. 05-1591.
10