Stenson v. United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York

Filing 43

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/15/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment 26 and Defendant's Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment 28 are DENIED. This case will proceed to trial on 2/26/18. The pretrial conference will be held on 1/10/18 at 4:00 p.m. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARGO STENSON,

12
13
14

No.

2:16-cv-00782-JAM-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND CROSS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

15
Defendant.
16
17

The parties failed to properly notify the Court that they

18

had satisfied the Court’s meet and confer requirement in

19

connection with their motion/cross motions for summary judgment.

20

The parties filed declarations which state that they did meet and

21

confer before the dispositive motions filing deadline.

22

36, 37, 38).

23

withdraws its Order dismissing these motions.

24

these motions is still vacated and the motions have been taken

25

under submission.

26

and cross motion are denied.

27
28

(ECF Nos.

The Court accepts the parties’ declarations and
The hearing on

For the reasons set forth below, the motion

It is clear from the voluminous pleadings filed by the
parties in support of and in opposition to these motions that
1

1

there are genuine disputes as to numerous material facts (and the

2

inferences to be drawn from these facts) such that summary

3

judgment cannot be granted to either party in this case and that

4

this action must proceed to trial.

5

facts go to the very core of this case and are genuinely

6

disputed:

7

For example, the following

1.

Was Dr. Stenson’s death caused by an accidental
overdose of drugs?

2.

Did Dr. Stenson overdose with suicidal ideation?

3.

Was Dr. Stenson addicted to opioids/narcotics?

4.

Did the prescription medication impact Dr.
Stenson’s cognition?

5.

Is the Toxicology Report (ECF Nos.28-40, Ex. 5 to
Tara Blake Declaration) flawed?

6.

What did Defendant review and consider in its
investigation of Plaintiff’s claim and did
Defendant consider any evidence other than that
submitted by Plaintiff as part of investigation
of this claim?

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Indeed, most of the most critical “undisputed facts”
17
submitted in support of the parties’ motions are disputed and/or
18
objected to by the responding parties. 1

Also, Defendant’s

19
Motions to Strike the Declarations of Plaintiff’s Experts cannot
20
be decided by this Court in the absence of a Daubert hearing.
21
In short, the Court believes that if counsel had engaged in
22
a thorough discussion of these contemplated motions for summary
23
judgment before they were filed, they would have reached the same
24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that Defendant’s blanket objections to
Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts (116 “undisputed facts”
and 94 “objections”) and seven Declarations are particularly
unhelpful and unnecessary given the evidentiary rules governing
summary judgment motions and the Court’s ability to self-police.
Evidence that is obviously not admissible is not considered by
the Court.
2

1

conclusion as this Court, i.e., neither party is entitled to

2

judgment as a matter of law given the numerous and genuine

3

disputes of material facts going to the heart of this case.

4

While the Court acknowledges that there are a number of legal

5

issues that have been raised by the parties in these motions, 2

6

the resolution of those issues are largely dependent upon the

7

factual findings that either a jury or this Court will need to

8

make at the trial of this matter.

9

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) and

10

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) are

11

therefore DENIED.

12

26, 2018.

13

2018 at 4:00 p.m.

14
15

This case will proceed to trial on February

The pretrial conference will be held on January 10,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 15, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

For example: (1) which definition of accident should be applied
in this case, the Khatchatrian definition advocated by Defendants
(accident requires (1) an external event that is (2) unforeseen)
or the Weil, Jones, Olson, Pilcher definition advocated by
Plaintiff (accidental death is an unintended and undesigned
result even if caused by the insured’s voluntary act); (2) Has
Defendant waived the sickness or disease exclusion and/or is this
exclusion unenforceable; (3) Is Plaintiff’s claim barred by
delay; and (4) Is Plaintiff entitled to maintain her punitive
damages claim.
3