Upadhyay v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 43 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. C 13-01368 SI

VANDANA UPADHYAY, an individual,

v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Connecticut corporation,

14

Defendant.

/

15
16

On January 16, 2014, the Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Docket No.

17

41. By the present motion, plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that order.

18

Docket No. 43. In the motion, plaintiff states that he seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order based

19

on the following four grounds:

20

1.

Under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident

21

Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013) and the controlling provisions of the California Insurance

22

Code, plaintiff’s suit was timely.

23

2.

does not embrace any exceptions, such as the exception created in the Court’s order.

24
25

The rule articulated in Harlick v. Blue Shield of Cal., 686 F.3d 699, 719 (9th Cir. 2012)

3.

Defendant substantively waived its right to raise the release as an affirmative defense

26

when, at the conclusion of the administrative process, it told plaintiff that she had the

27

right to bring a civil suit under ERISA for judicial review of its denial of benefits.

28

4.

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the release executed by plaintiff extended
to the insurers of the Plan.

1

For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s motion for

2

leave. The Court grants plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration based on grounds one, three,

3

and four. The Court declines to grant plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration based on ground

4

two.1 Defendant must file its opposition by February 11, 2014, and plaintiff must file its reply by

5

February 18, 2014. The matter will be submitted without oral argument.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 29, 2014

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

With respect to ground two, plaintiff makes arguments that either were raised or could have
been raised in its opposition brief and at oral argument. A motion for reconsideration may not be used
to reargue the motion or make arguments for the first time that could reasonably have been raised earlier
in the litigation. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Moreover, the Court’s prior ruling did create or rely on an exception to the rule articulated in Harlick.
As explained in the prior order, the rule articulated in Harlick was simply inapplicable because the Court
was not reviewing the merits of defendant’s decision to deny benefits. See Docket No. 41 at 3-4;
Harlick, 686 F.3d at 719 (“A plan administrator may not fail to give a reason for a benefits denial during
the administrative process and then raise that reason for the first time when the denial is challenged
in federal court . . . .”) (emphasis added).
2