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
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?