Koga-Smith v. MetLife et al
Filing
17
ORDER RESETTING CMC FROM 11/9/12 TO 2/7/13 AT 9:00 A.M. Case Management Statement due by 1/31/2013. Case Management Conference set for 2/7/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/6/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
James Efting, Esq. (SBN 88276)
Marcus Godfrey, Esq. (SBN 282731)
JACKSON & EFTING
438 South Murphy Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94086-6114
(408) 732-3114
FAX (408) 732-0709
jefting@jacksonefting.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NAOMI KOGA-SMITH
SEDGWICK LLP
REBECCA HULL (SBN 99802)
rebecca.hull@sedgwicklaw.com
MARK J. HANCOCK (SBN 160662)
mark.hancock@sedgwicklaw.com
333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
Telephone:
415.781.7900
Facsimile:
415.781.2635
Attorneys for Defendant
METLIFE, aka METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
NAOMI KOGA-SMITH,
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. C 12-04050 EMC
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
ORDER RESETTING CMC
20
21
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
METLIFE, aka METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, LISA K.
CARTER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT &PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All
Judges of the Northern District of California dated July 1, 2011 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
27
28
SF/3188327v1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1
1.
Jurisdiction & Service
2
The basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 United States Code
3
sections 1331, 1332, 1441(a) ,1441(b), and 1441(c). The complaint seeks life insurance benefits
4
that plaintiff claims are owed to her by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) under
5
the terms of an employee welfare benefit plan, and thereby states a claim only under the
6
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. section 1001, et seq.
7
There are no issues regarding personal jurisdiction or venue. Plaintiff states that all parties have
8
been served. However, Lisa Carter has been served but has not appeared.
9
10
11
2.
Facts
Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff, Naomi Koga-Smith, is the surviving spouse of Herbert E. Smith, Jr. Plaintiff,
Naomi Koga-Smith and Herbert E. Smith, Jr. were married at the time of the death of Herbert E.
12
Smith, Jr.
13
Herbert E. Smith, Jr. died on, or about, February 9, 2102, a resident of Santa Clara
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
County. Prior to his death, plaintiff, Naomi Koga-Smith and Herbert E. Smith, Jr. entered into
certain life insurance contracts with defendant, MetLife, aka Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, insuring the life of Herbert E. Smith, Jr. Plaintiff alleges that the life insurance
contracts were entered into in Santa Clara County.
The life insurance proceeds due from defendant, MetLife, are commonly described as
benefits payable under Group No. 0118250, Claim No. 21203004448.
The amount of the proceeds payable from defendant, MetLife, are $164,000 from a
21
“Basic Life” policy paid by decedent, Herbert E. Smith, Jr.’s, employer, and $150,000 from a
22
“Supplemental/Optional Life” policy paid from decedent, Herbert E. Smith, Jr.’s, wages.
23
24
All premiums paid for the life insurance were from the community funds of Plaintiff,
Naomi Koga-Smith and Herbert E. Smith, Jr.
25
MetLife’s Position
26
The decedent, Herbert E. Smith Jr. (the “Decedent”), was a participant in a welfare
27
benefit plan (the “Plan”) sponsored by his employer. The plan is regulated by the Employee
28
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Life
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
SF/3188327v1
1
insurance benefits are payable under the plan as the result of the death of the Decedent. The
2
most recent life insurance beneficiary designation for the Decedent is dated July 28, 2005 (the
3
“July 28, 2005 Beneficiary Designation”). It lists both Naomi Koga-Smith (“Koga-Smith”) and
4
Lisa K. Carter as the Decedent’s primary co-beneficiaries for life insurance coverage under the
5
6
Plan. Plaintiff informed MetLife that she claimed she was entitled to all of the proceeds of the
7
life insurance policies on the life of her husband, and she later commenced this action. Koga-
8
Smith has recently informed MetLife that she and Lisa K. Carter (“Carter”) desire to resolve
9
their claims to Plan benefits and that Carter desires to renounce her interest in the Plan benefits.
10
3.
11
Legal Issues
The parties are in the process of preparing an agreement which they believe will result in
12
a resolution of the claims alleged in the complaint and a dismissal of the entire action.
13
Accordingly, the parties have no disputed points of law to identify at this time.
14
4.
There were no prior motions and there are no pending motions.
15
16
5.
6.
7.
23
24
25
Disclosures
There has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure requirements of
21
22
Evidence Preservation
Parties kept files in a safe location.
19
20
Amendment of Pleadings
The parties are not expected to add claims or defenses.
17
18
Motions
Fed.R. Civ. P. 26.
8.
Discovery
There has been no discovery and, in light of the agreement being prepared which will
result in the dismissal of the Complaint, there is no anticipated discovery at this time. Should the
matter go forward MetLife’s position is that discovery will be limited to the administrative
26
record, since this matter is governed by ERISA.
27
28
SF/3188327v1
3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1
9.
This is not a class action.
2
3
10.
Related Cases
There are no related cases.
4
5
Class Actions
11.
Relief
6
Plaintiff’s Position
7
Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination that Naomi Koga-Smith is the sole beneficiary of
8
9
10
11
the $164,000 “Basic Life” policy and of the $150,000 “Supplemental/Optional Life” policy, with
defendant, MetLife, commonly described as benefits payable under Group No. 0118250, Claim
No. 21203004448.
12.
MetLife’s Position
MetLife has no interest in the Plan benefits, except to ascertain that they are paid in
12
accordance with the terms of the Plan, ERISA, and the compromise of Koga-Smith and Carter;
13
13.
14
15
16
17
18
Settlement and ADR
Settlement is likely. The parties are in the process of preparing an agreement which they
believe will result in a resolution of the claims alleged in the complaint and a dismissal of the
entire action. The parties suggest that there is no need for a case management conference at this
time and that the conference presently scheduled may be taken off calendar.
14.
19
Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes
Not all parties who have appeared have consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all
20
further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
21
15.
22
Other References
This case is not suitable for binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on
23
Multi district Litigation.
24
16.
25
Narrowing of Issues
There are no issues to narrow at this point. The parties are in the process of preparing an
26
agreement which they believe will result in a resolution of the claims alleged in the complaint
27
and a dismissal of the entire action.
28
SF/3188327v1
4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1
17.
Expedited Trial Procedure
This case is not expected to go to trial. The Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order
2
3
64, Attachment A, is not necessary.
4
18.
No scheduling dates need to be made at this time.
5
6
19.
20.
11
Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons
Each party has filed the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons required by Civil
9
10
Trial
If necessary, the case will be tried to the court.
7
8
Scheduling
Local Rule 3-16. Naomi Koga-Smith, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and Lisa K. Carter
are all persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, (including parent corporations) or other entities
known by the parties to have either: (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or
12
in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected
13
by the outcome of the proceeding.
14
21.
Other
15
16
Lisa Carter currently resides in England. Plaintiff has been in communication with Lisa
17
Carter. Lisa Carter has agreed to cooperate and has verbally indicated that she has no interest in
18
the life insurance proceeds. Lisa Carter is expected to sign off on the agreement being prepared
19
for the resolution of the case.
20
DATED: November 1, 2012
21
Sedgwick LLP
By: /s/ Rebecca A. Hull
Rebecca Hull
Mark J. Hancock
Attorneys for Defendants
METLIFE, aka METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
22
23
24
DATED: November 1, 2012
26
By: /s/ James Efting (as authorized 11/2/12)
IT IS SO ORDERED that
James Efting
the CMC is reset from
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11/9/12 to 2/7/13 at 9:00 S DISTRIC NAOMI KOGA-SMITH
TC
TE
TA
a.m.
____________________ IS SO ORDERED
IT
5
DIFIED
AS MO
Edward M. Chen
JOINT CASE arMANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
. Chen
dw d M
U.S. District Judge
Judge E
R NIA
H
LI
RT
FO
NO
ER
A
SF/3188327v1
S
28
UNIT
ED
27
JACKSON & EFTING
RT
U
O
25
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?