Jones v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 195

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR LIMITED DETERMINATION, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge James Ware on 3/20/12. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 08-03971 JW

Susan Rene Jones,

11

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR LIMITED
DETERMINATION

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
On November 30, 2011, the Court received the Ninth Circuit’s Mandate in this matter. (See

16

Docket Item No. 193.) The Mandate was issued pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s October 28, 2011

17

Order,1 in which the Ninth Circuit vacated two aspects of the Court’s July 8, 2010 Order Granting

18

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

19

Judgment.2 In particular, the Ninth Circuit: (1) found that the Court had erred by “dismissing

20

Plaintiff’s claim concerning the amount of long-term disability benefits, including the question

21

whether an offset should be applied and any other questions related to the amount of such benefits,”

22

and held that this claim should be remanded to the Plan Administrator; and (2) found that the Court

23
24
25
1

26
2

27
28

(Memorandum, Docket Item No. 175.)

(Docket Item No. 118.) Both the Court’s July 8, 2010 Order and the Ninth Circuit’s
October 28, 2011 Order are discussed at length in an order issued by the Court on February 24,
2012. (See Order Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney Fees at 2-3,
18-20, hereafter, “February 24 Order,” Docket Item No. 192.)

1

had erred by “requiring each party to bear its own fees before the 14-day time for filing a fee motion

2

expired,” and held that Plaintiff should be permitted to file a fee motion.3

3

Accordingly, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the Court REMANDS the issue of

4

Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits, including the question of whether an offset should be

5

applied and any other questions related to the amount of such benefits, to the Plan Administrator.4

6

The Plan Administrator shall make a determination on this issue within ninety (90) days of the

7

issuance of this Order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(f).5

8
9

Administrator’s determination, any party may move to have this case reopened for further
proceedings.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The Clerk of Court shall administratively close this case. Within ten (10) days of the Plan

12
13

Dated: March 20, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

14
15
16
3

17
18

(See February 24 Order at 18 (quoting Memorandum at 2-4).) The Court has already
addressed the fee motions filed by Plaintiff pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s Mandate. (See February
24 Order.)
4

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document styled “Request for Further Case
Management Conference.” (Plaintiff Jones [sic] Request for Further Case Management Conference
or Alternatively for Statement on Issues by Parties Prior to Hearing to Spread Mandate [sic] and
Proposed Order, hereafter, “Request,” Docket Item No. 194.) In this Request, Plaintiff contends that
there are “several issues important to proper disposition of [this] case” of which the Court is
“unaware.” (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff does not specify any of these “issues.”
The Civil Local Rules state that “[a]ny written request to the Court for an order must be
presented” to the Court by one of a specified number of means, including a “[d]uly noticed motion
pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2” and a “motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11.” Civ.
L.R. 7-1(a). Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Request was not properly filed as a motion
pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, and accordingly declines to address it. If Plaintiff believes that a
Case Management Conference is required, she shall file a properly noticed motion pursuant to the
Local Rules.
The Court observes that while it liberally construes similar submissions by pro se plaintiffs
as motions, Plaintiff in this case is represented by experienced counsel.
5

27
28

As the Court explained in its February 24 Order, Plaintiff submitted this issue to the Plan
Administrator prior to filing her appeal with the Ninth Circuit. (See February 24 Order at 18-19.)
2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Erin A. Cornell [e-mail]
Rebecca A. Hull [e-mail]
Robert Burton Nichols [e-mail]

3
4

Dated: March 20, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy