Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denies Aetna Life Insurance Company’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction pending interlocutory appeal. The court holds that Aetna has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm, emphasizing the applicability of Bostock to the plaintiffs’ statutory sex-discrimination claims. The court denies the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the injunction without prejudice because the prior order did not specify a deadline for compliance, while stating that Aetna must act with reasonable diligence.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Decision date
May 15, 2026
Docket number
3:24-cv-1447 (VAB)
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Aetna satisfied the four-factor standard for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending interlocutory appeal.
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforcement of the preliminary injunction or an order requiring Aetna to show cause why it should not be held in contempt.
- Whether the absence of a deadline for Aetna's individualized medical-necessity determinations meant that Aetna had failed to comply within a time specified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(a).
Holdings
- Aetna did not establish a substantial possibility of success on appeal or irreparable injury sufficient to justify a stay, and the remaining factors also favored denial; therefore, the motion to stay was denied.
- The pending interlocutory appeal did not relieve Aetna of its obligation to comply with the preliminary injunction because the court denied the requested stay.
- The plaintiffs were not entitled at that time to an order requiring Aetna to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, but the motion was denied without prejudice to renewal if Aetna failed to take reasonable and diligent steps to comply.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…