Koga-Smith v. MetLife et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen re 37 Defendant's motion for clarification and 34 Defendant's Motion for Injunctive Relief (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

NAOMI KOGA-SMITH,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

10

United States District Court

No. C-12-4050 EMC

METLIFE, et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Docket Nos. 34, 37)

13
14
15

Defendant Lisa K. Carter has filed a motion for clarification regarding the civil minutes for a

16

case management conference that was held on February 7, 2013. She has also filed a motion for

17

“injunctive relief.” The Court has considered the motions and hereby rules as follows.

18

1.

As the Court stated in the civil minutes, Ms. Carter’s case management conference

19

statement of January 25, 2013, see Docket No. 31, is deemed her motion for summary judgment.

20

Given that Ms. Carter has agreed that she has entered a general appearance, that motion raises one

21

issue: whether, as a matter of law, Defendant MetLife is obligated to distribute funds according to

22

the beneficiary designation.

23

2.

The civil minutes state that MetLife is to file an opposition to the summary judgment

24

motion no later than March 7, 2013. The Court hereby clarifies that Ms. Koga-Smith is also to file

25

an opposition by that date. Ms. Carter’s reply brief(s) is to be filed by March 14, 2013. The Court

26

shall then take the matter under submission.

27
28

3.

For all summary judgment-related briefs, the parties are permitted to submit

evidence, including but not limited to evidence obtained on the ERISA issue through discovery

1

which this Court permitted. All parties should ensure that responses to discovery, including

2

document productions, are made available on a timely basis to all other parties, even if the discovery

3

response comes from a third party (e.g., the decedent’s employer).

4

4.

The Court shall continue to require a joint case management conference statement for

Koga-Smith, MetLife, and Ms. Carter. However, the Court notes that, per its standing order, there

7

can be an exception where a pro se litigant, such as Ms. Carter, is involved. “In cases involving pro

8

se litigants, parties shall attempt to file a joint statement; if after due diligence, an agreement cannot

9

be reached, the parties may file separate case management statements, with each statement not to

10

exceed seven (7) pages.” Civil Standing Order ¶ 6. The Court emphasizes that there must be true

11
For the Northern District of California

future case management conferences. This means a joint submission from all parties, i.e., Ms.

6

United States District Court

5

due diligence.

12

5.

As to Ms. Carter’s motion for “injunctive relief,” if Ms. Koga-Smith initiates another

13

lawsuit concerning the funds at issue, then she shall file a notice with this Court, and serve a copy of

14

that notice on all parties, stating that such a lawsuit has been filed and identifying that lawsuit by

15

case name, number, and court.

16

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 34 and 37.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: February 12, 2013

21
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2