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
[phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
NAOMI KOGA-SMITH
SEDGWICK LLP
REBECCA HULL (SBN 99802)
[e-mail]
MARK J. HANCOCK (SBN 160662)
[e-mail]
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