Edwards et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 160

Order by Hon. Charles R. Breyer granting 150 Defendant MetLife's Motion for Summary Judgment. (crblc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. CV 10-03755 CRB

BEATRICE EDWARDS and
CARL C. EDWARDS,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
METLIFE’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14
15

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

16

Defendants.

/

17

Pro se Plaintiffs Carl and Beatrice Edwards brought suit against numerous unrelated

18
19

entities, alleging a variety of causes of action stemming from Mrs. Edwards’ car accident on

20

February 6, 2008. See generally Not. of Removal Ex. A (dkt. 1); First Amended Complaint

21

(“FAC”) (dkt. 75). Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), the sole remaining

22

defendant, has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as on its

23

counterclaim against Mrs. Edwards (dkt. 96). See Mot. (dkt. 150). Plaintiffs filed no written

24

response to the motion and informed the Court at a hearing on July 12, 2013, that they were

25

offering no opposition to MetLife’s motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS MetLife’s

26

motion for summary judgment.

27

//

28

//

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

As an employee of Citigroup, Inc., Mrs. Edwards was a participant in the Citigroup

3

Long Term Disability (“LTD”) Plan. MetLife is the claim administrator for the LTD Plan

4

and issued to Citigroup a group policy to fund LTD benefits. Mrs. Edwards applied for

5

benefits under the LTD Plan following her 2008 car accident, and her claim was approved in

6

June 2008. Due to her age, Mrs. Edwards was eligible for no more than 36 months of

7

benefits—that is, through June 2011. Mrs. Edwards started receiving Social Security

8

benefits in May 2009, but MetLife did not become aware of such benefits until May 2010.

9

Because her LTD benefits should have been reduced by the amount she was receiving in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Social Security benefits, MetLife overpaid Mrs. Edwards from May 2009 to May 2010 in the

11

amount of $24,154.
Thereafter, MetLife recovered the overpayment by withholding the monthly benefits

12
13

Mrs. Edwards would have otherwise received. MetLife contends that, contrary to Mrs.

14

Edwards claim in this action, it never “denied” her claim for benefits, but rather she failed to

15

receive payments because she owed MetLife an amount in excess of the benefits to which

16

she was entitled. As a result, MetLife asks the Court to find not only that Mrs. Edwards is

17

not entitled to any further benefits from MetLife, but also that MetLife is entitled to recover

18

the unpaid balance of their overpayment to Mrs. Edwards in the amount of $6754, as sought

19

by their counterclaim.
MetLife also moves for summary judgment on any claims brought by Mr. Edwards on

20
21

the ground that he lacks standing under ERISA to sue MetLife because he was neither a

22

participant in the LTD nor a beneficiary. To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged other causes of

23

action against MetLife (which MetLife argues is not clear from the FAC), MetLife argues

24

that ERISA preempts any claim for tort or general damages against it.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
2

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

2
3

interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is

4

no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

5

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there

6

is no genuine dispute with respect to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a

7

matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The nonmoving party

8

must “set out ‘specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324-25 (quoting Fed.

9

R. Civ. P. 56(c)). If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, the moving party is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 323.

11

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs did not oppose MetLife’s summary judgment motion nor respond in writing

12
13

to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, which required that “[t]o the extent that Plaintiffs wish

14

the Court to consider any response to the motion, such material shall be filed by 5:00 pm on

15

Wednesday, June 19, 2013.” Order (dkt. 157). The Court had previously issued its

16

Summary Judgment Warning to Pro Se Plaintiffs in February 2013, which advised Plaintiffs,

17

in relevant part that “[i]f you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

18

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your

19

case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.” Summ. J. Warning (dkt. 143).
At the Show Causing hearing held on July 12, 2013, Plaintiffs informed the Court that

20
21

they were not opposing MetLife’s motion for summary judgment.

22

IV.

23
24

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS MetLife’s motion for summary

judgment and awards MetLife $6,745.00 on its counterclaim.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 2, 2013

3