Haddad, M.D. v. SMG Long Term Disability Plan et al

Filing 58

STIPULATION and ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT signed by William H Orrick, III on 5/22/2019. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY Laurence F. Padway (SBN 89314) 1516 Oak Street, Suite 109 Alameda, CA 94501 Tel: 510.814.6100 Fax: 510.814.0650 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fadi G. Haddad, M.D. Michael B. Bernacchi (SBN 163657) E-mail: mbernacchi@bwslaw.com BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 Attorneys for Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO 13 14 FADI G. HADDAD, M.D., 15 Case No. 2:16-cv-01700-WHO Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 16 v. 17 SMG LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, AND HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 RECITALS 22 23 WHEREAS, Dr. Haddad claims disability under a group disability policy (number 24 GVL-16008) (Policy) issued by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company as part of 25 an employee welfare benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security 26 Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 27 WHEREAS, Dr. Haddad filed this lawsuit seeking disability benefits from Hartford 28 captioned Fadi G. Haddad, M.D. v. SMG Long-Term Disability Plan and Hartford Life LA #4814-8451-9575 v1 CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1700-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 and Accident Insurance Company, now pending as Case No. 2:16-cv-01700-WHO in the 2 United States District Court, Eastern District of California [Docket 42]. 3 WHEREAS, Dr. Haddad’s claim for Short-Term Disability (“STD”) benefits from 4 Hartford was litigated in the District Court to judgment [Docket 35] and appealed to the 5 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case back 6 to the District Court with instructions on January 22, 2019 [Docket 42]. 7 WHEREAS, Hartford claims an offset to the Short-Term and Long-Term 8 Disability benefits provided by the Policy based upon Dr. Haddad’s settlement of a 9 personal injury lawsuit captioned Haddad v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., et al., 10 United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00405- 11 MCE-CKD, and Dr. Haddad disputes said entitlement. 12 WHEREAS, the settlement agreement between Dr. Haddad and Hilton contains a 13 confidentiality provision which precludes Dr. Haddad from providing that agreement to 14 Hartford absent a court order. 15 WHEREAS, Dr. Haddad and Hartford agree that production of the settlement 16 agreement would facilitate Hartford’s analysis of its entitlement to an offset, and Hartford 17 has agreed to be bound by the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement to the 18 same extent that the parties to the Hilton settlement are bound. Accordingly, counsel for 19 Dr. Haddad believes that Hartford is entitled to an order for production of the Hilton 20 settlement agreement. See Ex Parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435 (1915). 21 WHEREAS, although the settlement agreement between Dr. Haddad and Hilton 22 does not require notice to Hilton prior to the seeking of a court order for disclosure of the 23 agreement, counsel for Dr. Haddad has nonetheless twice emailed and twice left voice 24 mail messages for counsel for Hilton, the earliest of which was on May 9, 2019, advising 25 Hilton’s counsel of Hartford’s request to see the settlement agreement and offering 26 counsel for Hilton the opportunity to object and be heard on the matter. Counsel for 27 Hilton has not responded to these emails and voice mails. 28 LA #4814-8451-9575 v1 -2- CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1700-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 WHEREAS, Hartford has agreed not to claim an offset to the Short Term 2 Disability benefits provided by the Policy based on the Hilton settlement, provided that 3 (1) the settlement agreement is provided to Hartford and (2) Hartford reserves its right to 4 claim any offset to which it may be entitled against any Long Term Disability benefits 5 which may be due to Dr. Haddad. 6 STIPULATION 7 Now, therefore the parties stipulate that the Court order: 8 1. Dr. Haddad shall promptly produce the settlement agreement in the Hilton case 9 to counsel for Hartford. 10 2. Hartford, SMG Long Term Disability Plan, and their counsel shall be bound by 11 the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement to the same extent 12 that Dr. Haddad and Hilton are bound. 13 3. Any party to this stipulation, or Hilton, may move for an order that the Hilton 14 settlement agreement be filed under seal in this action. The Court may or may 15 not grant such motion. 16 4. Hartford shall promptly produce all of its policies and procedures pertaining to 17 the offset of third party settlements for the relevant time period at issue, 18 including how Hartford determines the amount of the settlement it attributes to 19 lost earnings when the settlement is for a lump sum. 20 21 Dated: May 21, 2019 Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway 22 By: /s/ Laurence F. Padway Laurence F. Padway Attorneys for Plaintiff Fadi G. Haddad, M.D. 23 24 25 26 27 28 LA #4814-8451-9575 v1 -3- CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1700-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 Dated: May 21, 2019 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 2 By: /s/ Michael B. Bernacchi Michael B. Bernacchi Attorneys for Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 3 4 5 6 7 8 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 I, Michael B. Bernacchi, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other Signatory. 9 By: /s/ Michael B. Bernacchi Michael B. Bernacchi 10 11 12 ORDER 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: _May 22, 2019__________ ____________________________________ Honorable William H. Orrick United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LA #4814-8451-9575 v1 -4- CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1700-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?