Walid Jammal; Kathleen Tuersley; Cinda J. Durachinsky; Nathan Garrett v. American Family Insurance Company

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0145n.06
No. 20-3226
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY;
CINDA J. DURACHINSKY; NATHAN
GARRETT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY;
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WISCONSIN; AMERICAN FAMILY
TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN;
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP;
AMERICAN FAMILY 401K PLAN; GROUP LIFE
PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; GROUP
DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY
PLAN; AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE
GROUP MASTER RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K
PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE;
COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT
MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
O R D E R
BEFORE: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
This case returns to us after our previous disposition in Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co.,
914 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2019). There, we held that the plaintiff insurance agents were, as a matter
of law, independent contractors, not employees of the defendant insurance companies for purposes
of ERISA. Id. at 451. The insurance agents petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the court

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 20-3226, Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co.
- 2 -
denied. The insurance agents then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it
denied. 140 S. Ct. 643 (2019) (mem.). The Court also denied the insurance agents’ petition for
rehearing. 140 S. Ct. 985 (2020) (mem.).
The case returned to the district court. The parties had agreed throughout the litigation that
if the insurance agents were independent contractors, then the case “would necessarily be re-
solved” in favor of the insurance companies. Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co., No. 1:13-cv-00437-
DCN (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2020), Doc. No. 350, at PageID 25,283. Thus, the companies moved for
judgment, to which the insurance agents “offered no substantive objection.” Id. at PageID 25,283–
84. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment for the insurance companies. Id. at
PageID 25,284; see also Doc. Nos. 351–52, at PageID 25,285–91 (entered the same day).
The insurance agents now appeal the entry of judgment. But no further substantive pro-
ceedings below are at issue—“[t]he rights of the parties in the subject-matter of the suit were fi-
nally determined upon the original appeal, and all that remained for the [District] Court to do was
to enter a decree in accordance with our instructions, and carry it into effect.” Stewart v. Salamon,
97 U.S. 361, 362 (1878). That decree “is in effect our decree, and the appeal would be from our-
selves to ourselves.” Ibid. We have no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. Ringhiser v. Ches-
apeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 264 F.2d 62, 63 (6th Cir. 1959) (per curiam).
We dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 20-3226, Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co.
- 3 -
CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring. In our previous opportunity to consider Plaintiffs’
arguments, I dissented because the majority opinion “(1) adopt[ed] an incorrect standard of review
for district court determinations regarding whether and to what extent the [Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)] factors support employee or independent contractor status;
(2) incorrectly analyze[d] Darden factors one and eight; and (3) incorrectly weigh[ed] the Darden
factors.” Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 914 F.3d 449, 460 (6th Cir. 2019) (Clay, J., dissenting).
Although I continue to believe that the majority opinion was wrongly decided, I agree that we lack
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Therefore, I concur.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

-- 3 of 3 --