Glantz v. Cigna Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER re: 22 Joint Case Management Statement. Fact discovery cutoff: 10/22/2015. Crossmotions for Summary Judgment due by 12/9/2015. Bench Trial set for 1/19/2016 08:00 AM before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/03/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Rebecca Grey, Bar No. 194940
[e-mail]
P. Lauren Ruby, Bar No. 293105
[e-mail]
THE GREY LAW FIRM, P.C.
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1101
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.262.9926
Facsimile:
415.262.9981
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT GLANTZ

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Anna M. Martin, Bar No. 154279
[e-mail]
RIMAC MARTIN, P.C.
1051 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
Telephone:
415.561.8440
Facsimile:
415.561.8430
Attorneys for Defendants
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA;
OMNICOM BENEFITS INC.; and, the OMNICOM GROUP HEALTH AND WELFARE
BENEFIT PLAN (improperly named herein as Omnicom Benefits Inc. Insurance Plan)

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO

20

ROBERT GLANTZ,

21

Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 3:15-cv-00211 WHO

v.
CIGNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA; OMNICOM BENEFITS INC.;
OMNICOM BENEFITS INC. INSURANCE
PLAN,

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT;
ORDER
Complaint Filed: January 14, 2015
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

April 7, 2015
2:00 P.M.
2, 17th Floor
Hon. William H. Orrick

Defendants.

28
1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

Plaintiff Robert Glantz (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Life Insurance Company of North

1
2

America (“LINA”); Omnicom Group Health and Welfare Benefits Plan (together with the Group

3

Insurance Policy Number LK-980036, the “Plan”); and Omnicom Benefits Inc. (“Omnicom”)

4

(collectively “Defendants”), jointly submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5

and PROPOSED ORDER, pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District

6

of California dated July 1, 2011 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.

7

1.

JURISDICTION & SERVICE
Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively “the Parties”) agree that this Court’s jurisdiction is

8
9

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 29 U.S.C. §1132, as this matter is governed by the

10

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq., as amended

11

(“ERISA”). The Parties agree that venue is proper in this Court. Defendants contend that CIGNA

12

Life Insurance Company does not exist and has not been served. All other Defendants have

13

appeared in this matter.

14

2.

15

FACTS
Plaintiff was Vice President at Access Communications, from 1992 through 2012, and was

16

a participant in the Plan, which provided, inter alia, long term disability (“LTD”) benefits to

17

eligible employees. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. The LTD

18

portion of the Plan is insured by a policy of insurance issued by LINA to Omnicom, and LINA is

19

the claims administrator and underwriter. Omnicom is the named Plan Administrator according to

20

Plan documents. However, Plaintiff contends that LINA or CIGNA held itself out to Plaintiff as

21

the Plan Administrator.

22

In December 2012, Plaintiff filed a claim for long-term disability benefits claiming that he

23

suffered from conditions including severe rheumatoid arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue. On

24

April 26, 2013, LINA determined that Plaintiff was entitled to long-term disability benefits. From

25

March 2, 2013 through March 1, 2014, Plaintiff received LTD benefits from LINA. On December

26

18, 2013, LINA issued its initial decision denying further benefits to Plaintiff. On September 12,

27

2014, Plaintiff appealed LINA’s initial denial of further benefits. On November 12, 2014, LINA

28

denied Plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and this action is now
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

1

ripe for judicial review. Plaintiff thus brings these claims for relief against Defendants, seeking

2

payment of benefits under the Plan or equitable remedies due to Defendants’ purported breaches of

3

fiduciary duty, and sanctions for failure to provide documents.

4

3.

LEGAL ISSUES

5

1.

Whether there is a grant of discretion in the Plan;

6

2.

If there is a grant of discretion in the Plan, whether that grant of discretion is valid in
light of Insurance Code Section 10110.6;

7
8

3.

What is the applicable standard of review;

9

4.

If the standard of review is abuse of discretion, what degree of discretion should the
Court give the decisions made by Defendants;

10
11

5.

To what extent did a purported conflict of interest taint the decision-making process;

12

6.

To what extent is Plaintiff entitled to discovery in this matter and what discovery is
appropriate;

13
14

7.

What evidence outside of the administrative record is admissible;

15

8.

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to statutory penalties;

16

9.

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to equitable remedies due to Defendants’ purported
breaches of fiduciary duties; and

17
10.

18
19

4.

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the terms of the Plan.

MOTIONS

20

There are no pending motions. Depending on the discovery served by Plaintiff, there may

21

be discovery disputes that involve motion practice. Depending upon the Court’s preference, the

22

Parties may resolve this matter in cross-motions for Judgment under FRCP 52.

23

5.

The Parties do not anticipate any further amendments to the pleadings.

24
25

6.

28

EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
The Parties have taken the necessary steps to preserve the evidence pertinent to this matter.

26
27

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

7.

DISCLOSURES
Plaintiff and Defendants will complete Rule 26 disclosures by April 7, 2015.
3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

1

8.

DISCOVERY
Plaintiff contends that the nature of discovery will depend on the standard of review

2

3 applicable to this case. If the standard of review is abuse of discretion, Plaintiff anticipates
4 pursuing discovery on the impact of the structural conflict of interest on the claim decision in this
5 action. If the standard of review is de novo, Plaintiff anticipates pursuing discovery into
6 information necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review that will enable the full exercise of
7 informed and independent judgment, including information regarding the bias and credibility of
8 Defendants’ medical reviewers, Defendants; review procedures, and the extent to which relevant
9 documents were omitted from the administrative record.
Defendants contend that such discovery is improper and unnecessary and is sought to

10

11 disturb the streamlined process of ERISA, among other things.
12 9.

CLASS ACTIONS

13

Not applicable.

14 10.

RELATED CASES

15

There are no related cases at this time.

16 11.

RELIEF

17

Plaintiff seeks payment of past and future benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B);

18 “appropriate equitable relief” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1109, 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(2), 29 U.S.C.
19 §1132(a)(3) and CIGNA v. Corp. v. Amara, 131 S.Ct. 1866 (2011); civil penalties pursuant to 29
20 U.S.C. §1132(c)(1) and 29 C.F.R. 2575.502c-1; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs;
21 and attorney fees.
22 12.

SETTLEMENT AND ADR

23

The Parties have stipulated to Private Mediation with Jeff Krivis in San Francisco, which is

24

currently scheduled for May 15, 2015.

25

13.

____ YES

26
27
28

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

14.

X

NO

OTHER REFERENCES
The Parties agree that this case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a
4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

1

special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

2

15.

NARROWING OF ISSUES
The Parties request that any claim for attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g)(1)

3

4 be deferred pending the Court’s entry of judgment and determined by a separate motion
5 thereafter.
6

16.

EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE
The Parties agree that this matter can be presented through cross motions for judgment

7

8 under FRCP 52 and with oral argument presented to the Court.
9

17.

SCHEDULING

10

Proposed date for designation of experts: N/A

11

Scheduled date for private mediation: May 15, 2015

12

Proposed discovery cutoff date: October 22, 2015

13

Proposed date to file cross-motions for judgment: November 5, 2015

14

Proposed date to file oppositions: November 19, 2015

15

Proposed hearing date for Motions for Judgment: December 10, 2015

16

Proposed trial date: January 21, 2016 (if required)

17

18.

TRIAL

18

This matter is an ERISA case that may be decided through cross-motions for judgment

19

pursuant to Rule 52 of the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. If the case is not resolved by dispositive motion,

20

the Parties anticipate that a bench trial could be completed in one-half of a day. Rebecca Grey

21

will try the case for Plaintiff. Anna Martin will try the case for Defendants.

22

19.

DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

23

Plaintiff has no entities to disclose.

24

LINA makes the following disclosure: LINA is the insurer that issued the group disability

25 insurance policy at issue in this case. LINA is 100% owned by Connecticut General Corporation,
26 which is in turn 100% owned by CIGNA Holdings, Inc., which is 100% owned by Cigna
27 Corporation. Cigna Corporation is the only publicly traded company in the chain. None of the
28 companies have any control over the operations or decision-making of LINA or has a direct
5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

1

interest in the outcome of the case.

2
3
4

Dated: March 31, 2015

THE GREY LAW FIRM, P.C.

5
6

/s/ Rebecca Grey
Rebecca Grey
Counsel for Plaintiff

7
8
9 Dated: March 31, 2015

RIMAC MARTIN, P.C.

10
11
12

/s/ Anna M. Martin
Anna M. Martin
Counsel for Defendants

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER is

2
3

approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties shall comply with its

4

provisions, except that the hearing date on the crossmotions for summary judgment shall be

5

December 9, 2015 and the proposed bench trial date shall be January 19, 2016.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

April 3, 2015

10

HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00211 WHO