Cuaresma, Jr. v. Farmers Group Disability Income Plan, an ERISA Plan et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/18/2016 GRANTING on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies forthe reasons stated at the hearing on Defendants' 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

A Professional Corporation
Redwood City

Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

7

PAMELA E. COGAN (SBN 105089)
ROBERT M. FORNI, JR. (SBN 180841)
BLAKE J. RUSSUM (SBN 258031)
ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
1001 Marshall Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063-2052
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants,
FARMERS GROUP DISABILITY INCOME PLAN, and
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

NARCISIO CUARESMA, JR.,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

FARMERS GROUP DISABILITY INCOME
PLAN, an ERISA Plan, and LIBERTY LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON,

16
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 2:15-CV-02192-JAM-EFB
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON THEIR SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES [FRCP 56]
Date: September 6, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez

The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Liberty Life Assurance Company of
Boston and the Farmers Group Disability Income Plan, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, came on regularly for hearing before this Court on September 6, 2016 at 1:30
p.m., in Courtroom 6, 14th Floor, the Honorable John A. Mendez presiding. Robert M. Forni, Jr.
of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley appeared on behalf of Defendants. Laurence F. Padway of
the Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Narcisio Cuaresma, Jr.
After considering the evidence properly received at and before the hearing on the Motion,
the moving, opposition and reply papers, the oral arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing
therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in support of their

28
4852-2951-8132.2

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-02192 JAM-EFB

1
2

Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12-2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence in

3

Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No.

4

17-2) are OVERRULED.

hereby GRANTED on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for

7

A Professional Corporation
Redwood City

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

6

Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

5

the reasons stated at the hearing on Defendants’ Motion, including as follows:

8

The case law, although not Ninth Circuit case law, makes it clear that, while there may

9

have been a technical violation of ERISA regulations here, there has been no showing whatsoever

10

by Plaintiff that he did not have meaningful access to an administrative remedy procedure, or that

11

the appeal procedure that was set up did not give him a sufficient period of time. There has been

12

no complaint by Plaintiff that he was unable to meet the deadlines that were set. And there has

13

been, most importantly, no showing of prejudice, which the case law cited by Defendants

14

indicates is the standard that courts should use to review these types of cases under these

15

circumstances.

16

There, again, has not been a showing such as that Defendants failed to review the

17

documents that would have been submitted or could have been submitted within the timeline.

18

And, again, there is nothing and there is no evidence whatsoever that Defendants did anything to

19

prevent Plaintiff from making such a submission within the 180 days that Plaintiff was given to

20

submit such documents.

21

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff did, in fact, fail to exhaust his

22

administrative remedies and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the sixth

23

affirmative defense.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2016

26

/s/ John A. Mendez_____________________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge

27
28
4852-2951-8132.2

-2-

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-02192 JAM-EFB