Stout v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 14 MOTION TO STRIKE AND VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Motions due by 10/11/2021. Responses due by 11/8/2012.Cross Motions due by 11/8/2012. Replies due by 11/22/2012. Replies due by 12/6/2012. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/8/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

KATHLEEN A. STOUT,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 11-6186 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO STRIKE AND
VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.

12

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMAZON.COM
HOLDING, INC. LONG TERM
DISABILITY PLAN, and DOES 1-20,
inclusive,

13

Defendants.

11

14

________________________________/

15
16

Defendants Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

17

(Hartford) and Amazon.Com Holding, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan

18

(Plan) move, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to

19

strike Plaintiff Kathleen A. Stout's demand for a jury trial and

20

her request for future benefits.

21

Defendants have filed a reply.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and

The motion was taken under

22
submission and decided on the papers.

Having considered all the

23
24
25
26
27
28

papers filed by the parties, the Court grants the motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Plan is a group long-term disability plan sponsored
by Amazon.com Holdings, Inc., underwritten and insured by

1

Defendant Hartford and governed by the Employee Retirement Income

2

Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.

3

times, Plaintiff was employed by Amazon and was insured under the

4

Plan.

5

the Plan and that Hartford improperly denied her long term

6

At all relevant

Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled as defined by

disability benefits.

She asserts two claims.

7
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the court
8
9

may strike from a pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

or scandalous matter.”

11

is that which has no essential or important relationship to the

12

claim for relief."

13

(9th Cir. 1993), reversed on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

"Immaterial matter

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527

Plaintiff acknowledges that Ninth Circuit authority holds

15
that ERISA does not permit jury trials.

See e.g., Thomas v.

16
Oregon Fruit Prods. Co., 228 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2000).
17
18

However, she argues that in Great West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v.

19

Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 220-21 (2002), the Supreme Court changed

20

the law regarding jury trials.

21

did not address any issue pertaining to the right to a jury trial

22

under ERISA.

23

Plaintiff is incorrect; Great West

See Fowler v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4911172,

*5 (N.D. Cal.) (denying request for jury trial under ERISA).

In

24
light of the fact that there is no right to a jury trial in cases
25
26
27

brought under ERISA, Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's jury
demand is granted.

28
2

1

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff's demand for an order

2

enjoining them "from terminating benefits for the duration of the

3

applicable maximum benefit period under the Plan . . ."

4

Fowler, 2008 WL 491172 at *1, the court granted a motion to strike

5

the same request for declarative relief that is at issue here on

6

In

the ground that ERISA does not permit the court to predict the

7
future, given that circumstances affecting a claimant's
8
9

eligibility for benefits might change.

In Welsh v. Burlingame N.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Employee Benefits Plan, 54 F.3d 1331, 1340 (8th Cir. 1995), the

11

Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order declaring that

12

the plaintiff was entitled to benefits in the future for as long

13

as he was disabled, noting that the plan had the right to evaluate

14

whether the plaintiff continued to be disabled in the future.

15
Therefore, Plaintiff may not obtain an order that she is
16
entitled to an unconditional award of future benefits.

The Court

17
18

will construe her request as seeking an order entitling her to

19

future benefits as long as she qualifies for benefits under the

20

terms of the Plan.

21
22
23

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to strike is
granted.

The case management conference scheduled for March 21,

24
2012 is vacated.

The case is hereby referred to private mediation

25
26
27

for alternate dispute resolution, to be held not more than ninety
days from the date of this order.

28
3

1

Plaintiff may seek discovery informally from Defendants,

2

which Defendants shall provide if the requests are not burdensome.

3

If the parties cannot agree, they shall meet and confer.

4

still are unable to agree, the aggrieved party may file a motion,

5

which will be referred to a magistrate judge.

6

If they

Any discovery shall

be completed by October 11, 2012 and any experts disclosed by

7
September 11, 2012.

If Plaintiff wishes to supplement the

8
9

Administrative Record, Plaintiff shall attempt to obtain a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

stipulation from Defendants to do so.

If the parties cannot agree

11

on supplemental evidence, Plaintiff may include a request to

12

supplement the Administrative Record in the brief on the motion

13

for judgment, submitting the proposed supplemental evidence with a

14

declaration.

15
The case shall be resolved on cross-motions for judgment
16
pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
17
18

Kearney v. Standard Insurance, 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1999).

19

briefs shall address the scope of review and whether the Court's

20

review is limited to the Administrative Record or whether

21

supplemental evidence should be considered.

22
23

The

Plaintiff shall file her motion for judgment in a single
brief of no more than twenty-five pages on October 11, 2012.

24
Defendants shall file their opposition and cross-motion for
25
26

judgment in a single brief of no more than twenty-five pages on

27

November 8, 2012.

Plaintiff shall file a reply and opposition to

28

the cross-motion of no more than fifteen pages on November 22,
4

1

2012.

2

than fifteen pages on December 6, 2012.

3

on December 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 2.

4

Defendants may file a reply to the cross-motion of no more
The hearing will be held

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 3/8/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5