United States District Court, D. Columbia.
JAMAL J. KIFAFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Defendants
JAMAL J. KIFAFI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff: Stephen Robert Bruce, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Allison C. Pienta, STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES,
HILTON HOTEL RETIREMENT PLAN, HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION,
Defendants: Andrew M. Lacy, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP,
Washington, DC; Jonathan K. Youngwood, PRO HAC VICE, SIMPSON
THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, New York, NY; Thomas C. Rice, PRO HAC
VICE, COOLEY LLP, San Francisco, CA.
JAMES M. ANDERSON, members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement
Plan Committee, MATTHEW J. HART, members of the Hilton Hotels
Retirement Plan Committee, BARRON HILTON, DIETER HUCKESTEIN,
members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan Committee mem,
SAM D. YOUNG, JR., members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement
Plan Committee, Defendants: Andrew M. Lacy, LEAD ATTORNEY,
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan K.
Youngwood, PRO HAC VICE, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, New
York, NY; Thomas C. Rice, PRO HAC VICE, COOLEY LLP, San
EDNA OGBONNA, FANNY CANAR, MARC TOUSSAINT, Movants: Stephen
Robert Bruce, LEAD ATTORNEY, STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES,
KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
Order issued June 4, 2015, ECF No. 413, the Court granted in
part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration with respect to
the Court's February 4, 2015,  Order, through which
the Court had granted Defendants'  Motion
for Release of Bond Obligation and denied
Plaintiff's  Motion for Post-Judgment Discovery and
Motion to Modify the Judgment in Aid of Enforcement. Through
this Order, the Court resolves the remaining issues with
respect to that motion, denying the motion insofar as it was
held in abeyance previously. The Court also discusses and
resolves the various issues raised by the parties in the many
status reports filed between the issuance of the Court's
reconsideration Order and today. See ECF Nos. 415 -
431. As explained further below, the Court's jurisdiction
over this matter has now concluded--more than 17 years after
this action was filed--and this case is dismissed in its
Court presumes familiarity with the Court's numerous
previous Orders and Opinions issued over the many years this
case has been pending. See Kifafi v. Hilton
Hotels Retirement Plan, 79 F.Supp.3d 93, 97 (D.D.C.
2015) (citing previous opinions); see also
Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 701 F.3d
718, 722, 403 U.S. App.D.C. 156 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (referring
to twelve prior district court opinions). The Court presents
the limited background necessary to explain this Order.
August 31, 2011, the Court issued its final remedial order in
this case, and " retained 'continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over the parties and over the administration and
enforcement of this Order for a period of two (2)
years.'" Kifafi, 79 F.Supp.3d at 97 (citing
Order, dated Aug. 31, 2011, ECF No. 258). The Court
subsequently granted a stay pending the parties'
cross-appeals to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Id. The stay was granted contingent on Defendants
posting a bond in the amount of $75.8 million. Id.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, and this
Court's two-year continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over the parties and over the administration and enforcement
of its final remedial order began to run on February 22,
2013, the date on which the stay in this case was
automatically lifted by virtue of the issuance of the mandate
of the Court of Appeals. Id.
a Memorandum Opinion issued on February 4, 2015, the Court
concluded that " Defendants are in compliance such that
they satisfied the terms of the Court's August 31, 2011,
judgment." Id. at 111. The Court additionally
concluded that it was " satisfied that there are no
systemic problems or failures in Defendants'
implementation of the judgment, only a few refinements to
Defendants' forms and procedures that will further
facilitate Defendants reasonable efforts to implement the
judgment." Id. Accordingly, the Court the
granted Defendants' Motion for Release of Bond Obligation
and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Judgment Discovery
and Motion to Modify the Judgment in Aid of Enforcement.
Finally, in that order, the Court confirmed that the two-year
period of jurisdiction would terminate on February 23, 2015,
and the Court required Defendants to take certain additional
discrete steps before the Court's jurisdiction
terminated. Id. at 111-12.
after the issuance of the Court's February 4, 2015,
Order--and before the Court's jurisdiction terminated on
February 23, 2015--Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration. In setting a briefing schedule on that
motion, the Court indicated that its jurisdiction would
" continue as to the issues the Court engaged in
resolving in its February 4, 2015, Order to ensure the
judgment is implemented properly." Order, dated Feb. 19,
2015, ECF No. 399, at 1-2. On June 4, 2015, the Court
resolved the motion for reconsideration, granting it in part
(requiring an amendment to Defendants' denial letter),
held it in abeyance with respect to Defendants' efforts
to locate class members' addresses and to obtain address
information from Caesars Entertainment, and denying the
motion in all other respects. Order, dated June 4, 2015, ECF
No. 413. Specifically, the Court required that Defendants
follow certain processes for locating participants in the
Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan (" Plan" ) specified
in the Order and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. See
id. In addition, the Court required Defendants to file
" a certification that they have or will comply with the
address location process ordered by the Court for each class
member for whom an address has not yet been confirmed"
and to file " a sworn affidavit from Caesars
Entertainment explaining why Caesars located addresses for
only 98 class members and what efforts were made to locate
the addresses." Id. The Court also stated that
" the jurisdiction over the implementation of the
judgment in this matter shall continue only for the purpose
of resolving the discrete issues relating to Defendants'
address location process and obtaining addresses from Caesars
Entertainment." Id. It is those issues--which
have been the subject of numerous filings by the parties over
the past six months--that are now before the Court.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff pointed
to an arrangement with Caesars Entertainment to fund
approximately one-third of the liabilities of the Plan. In
the briefing on the Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants
indicated that Caesars--not a party to this action--searched
its records for any class members that had not yet been
located and that Caesars had located 98 class members.
Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 414, at 19. Plaintiff argues that
it was implausible that Caesars had located only 98 members
given that (1) the Plan had filed a separate action seeking
to recover approximately one-third of the Kifafi
liabilities from Caesars and that (2) approximately 500 of
the not-yet-located class members were associated with states
where Caesars operated facilities. See id. In light
of that dispute between the parties, the Court ordered
Defendants to obtain a sworn affidavit from Caesars
explaining why Caesars located addresses for only 98 class
members and explaining what efforts were made to locate the
addresses. Seeid. at 19-20. After some
difficulty obtaining such an affidavit, Defendants ultimately
obtained such an affidavit and filed it with the Court.
See Defs.' Notice of Compliance, ECF No. 420,
Affidavit of Brittany Davis (" Davis Aff." ).