Daguna v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER 27 VACATING hearing currently set for July 28, 2016 and associated briefing schedules. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/20/2016. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2016)

1

3

TONY ARJO, SBN 151890
1440 Broadway, Suite 1019
Oakland, CA 94612
[phone]
FAX: [phone]

4

Attorney for Plaintiff JOSE DAGUNA

5

ROBERT M FORNI, JR., SBN 180841
ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
1001 Marshall Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94603-2052
[phone]
FAX: [phone]

2

6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
JOSE DAGUNA,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
)
COMPANY OF BOSTON,
)
)
)
Defendant
)
______________________________)

15-cv-0905 EMC
STIPULATION RE: STANDARD
OF REVIEW & [PROPOSED]
ORDER

This action arises from the termination of plaintiff Jose Daguna’s claim for long-term

22

disability (“LTD”) benefits under The Safeway Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan (“the Plan”). The

23

Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income

24

Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). LTD

25

benefits under the Plan are insured by a Group Disability Income Policy that defendant Liberty

26

Life Assurance Company of Boston (“Liberty”) issued to Safeway, Inc., the sponsor of the Plan

27

and plaintiff’s former employer.

28

On November 17, 2015, counsel for Plaintiff and Liberty appeared for a Case

1

Management Conference before the Honorable Edward M. Chen. At that time, the Court set for

2

hearing on July 28, 2016 the parties cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the issue

3

of the standard of review to be applied by the Court.

4

The parties hereby stipulate and agree, by and through their counsel of record in this

5

action, that de novo review is the appropriate standard of review in this case. The cross-

6

motions for summary judgment are therefore moot. Accordingly, the parties respectfully

7

request that the briefing schedule and hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary

8

judgment be vacated and dropped from the calendar in this case.

9
10
11
12

Dated: May 18, 2016

By:

/s/ Tony Arjo
TONY ARJO

13
Attorney for Plaintiff JOSE DAGUNA
14
15
Dated: May 18, 2016

ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY

16
17
By:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Robert M. Forni, Jr.
ROBERT F. FORNI, JR.

Attorney for Defendant LIBERTY LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY

1
2

ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, the court hereby finds good cause to VACATE as

3

moot the hearing and related briefing schedule concerning the parties’ cross-motion for partial

4

summary judgment re: standard of review, currently set for hearing on July 28, 2016.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: May 20, 2016

________________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE