Hariri v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Filing 48

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 32 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; setting CMC. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 08/09/2017. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ROXY HARIRI, Case No. 5:15-cv-03054-EJD Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 32 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for partial summary judgment on 17 a single issue: preemption under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 18 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. Hariri (“Hariri”) asserts that the long term disability benefits funded by 19 Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”) is part of a “governmental 20 plan” that was “established or maintained” by her employer, Santa Clara County (“County”), and 21 is therefore exempt from ERISA under 29 U.S.C. §1003(b)(1). Reliance contends that the 22 “governmental plan” exemption is not applicable because Hariri’s employee union, and not the 23 County, “established or maintained” the long term disability plan underwritten by Reliance. 24 Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court grants Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary 25 judgment, and denies Defendant’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 II. BACKGROUND 1 2 Hariri began working for the County as a Deputy District Attorney in September 2001 and 3 was a member of the Santa Clara County Government Attorneys’ Association (the “GAA”). As a 4 County employee and member of the GAA, Hariri was eligible for employee benefits, including 5 long term disability (“LTD”) benefits. Beginning in 1992, the County provided continuous LTD 6 benefits for County attorneys who were members of the GAA through the purchase of a series of 7 group disability insurance policies. In October of 1997, however, the County and the GAA agreed 8 to share the cost of the premiums. The GAA membership began paying its portion of the premium 9 payments to the County via payroll deductions, and the County then made the full premium 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 payments to the insurance carrier. In order to help the County achieve budget savings, on September 2011, the County and 12 the GAA entered a Memorandum of Agreement (“2011 MOU”) covering the terms and conditions 13 of employment for GAA members from September 5, 2011 to September 1, 2013. With respect to 14 LTD benefits, the 2011 MOU provided as follows: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Effective September 5, 2011, the County will stop payments of up to $0.45/$100 of covered salary pursuant to the Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance side letter between the County and GAA signed October 10, 1997. Effective September 5, 2011, employees shall pay all premium costs for LTD insurance coverage (currently through The Standard Insurance Company), which shall continue to be deducted from the employees’ paycheck. Effective no later than March 4, 2012, the County will stop administering the LTD plan as the Employer Plan Sponsor. At least 60 calendar days prior to March 4, 2012, the County and GAA shall meet and confer regarding other options for administration of an LTD should GAA wish to continue LTD plan coverage specific for its members. 22 Defendant’s Moving Separate Statement 8 (“MSS”). Thereafter, the County provided the existing 23 LTD insurance carrier with a “formal notice of termination” of the policy. 24 On May 8, 2012, GAA informed the County that GAA would obtain a LTD policy from 25 Reliance. The GAA researched and purchased the Reliance Policy on its own, without County 26 involvement. The GAA and the County exchanged several emails about transitioning from the 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 2 28 1 previous LTD policy to the Reliance Policy and administration of the Reliance Policy. The emails 2 indicate that County expected and was given an opportunity to review the Reliance Policy before 3 it was purchased “in case there may be some issues that are of concern for us, particularly since 4 GAA is expecting the County to provide that administration.” Defendant’s MSS 22. In June of 5 2012, Reliance issued a group LTD policy to GAA as the policyholder. 6 In December of 2012, Hariri ceased working because of a claimed disability, and Reliance 7 paid her benefits. Hariri returned to work in November of 2013, but became disabled again in 8 January of 2014. In February of 2014, the County and the GAA entered into a new Memorandum of 10 Agreement, which provided in pertinent part that the County would resume paying a portion of the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 premiums for LTD insurance coverage, and would give employees a rebate for the premium costs 12 they paid for the LTD insurance coverage from June 24, 2013 to February 2, 2014. 13 Reliance denied Hariri’s claim for insurance in April 2014. Thereafter Hariri initiated this 14 action, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair 15 dealing under California law. 16 III. STANDARDS 17 Ordinarily, a motion for summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine 18 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 19 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving 20 party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the 21 portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that 22 demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 23 323 (1986). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving 24 party to go beyond the pleadings and designate specific materials in the record to show that there 25 is a genuinely disputed fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The court must draw 26 all reasonable inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 3 28 1 2 3 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). IV. DISCUSSION ERISA was enacted to protect, inter alia, “the interests of participants in employee benefit 4 plans and their beneficiaries.” 29 U.S.C. §1001(b). “Employee benefit plans” are either 5 “employee welfare benefit plans” or “employee pension benefit plans,” or both. Massachusetts v. 6 Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 109 S.Ct. 1668 (1989). ERISA defines an “employee welfare benefit plan” 7 as: “any plan, fund, or program which ... is ... established or maintained by an employer or by an 8 employee organization, or by both ... for the purpose of providing for its participants or their 9 beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment. . 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 . .” 29 U.S.C. §1002(1). The term “employee organization” is defined as “any labor union or any 12 organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee, association, group, 13 or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of 14 dealing with employers concerning an employee benefit plan, or other matters incidental to 15 employment relationships; or any employees' beneficiary association organized for the purpose in 16 whole or in part, of establishing such a plan. 29 U.S.C. §1002(4). ERISA preempts state law 17 claims that “relate to” employee benefit plans. See 29 U.S.C. §1144(a). 18 ERISA does not govern, however, employee benefit plans “established or maintained” by a 19 governmental entity. 29 U.S.C. §1003(b)(1); see also 29 U.S.C. §1002(32) (defining 20 “governmental plan” as “a plan established or maintained for its employees by the Government of 21 the United States, by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any 22 agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing”). “The use of the conjunction ‘or’ in section 23 1002(32) ‘indicates that a plan is a governmental plan if it is either established or maintained by a 24 government body for its employees.’” Roy v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n, 878 F.2d 47, 50 25 (2nd Cir. 1989), citing Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F. Supp. 1256, 1260 (S.D. N.Y. 1979). In the 26 Department of Labor Opinion, Opinion 86-23A, the U.S. Department of Labor stated its position 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 4 28 1 that governmental plans include “plans established or maintained pursuant to a collective 2 bargaining agreement between a governmental entity and a labor union where such plans are 3 funded by and cover only employees of governmental entities.” Although Department of Labor 4 opinion letters are not binding, they are entitled to deference. Imada v. City of Hercules, 138 F.3d 5 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1998). Governmental plans are exempted from ERISA due to concerns of federalism. Wilson v. 7 Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.3d 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2015). The Section 1003(b) 8 governmental plan exemption represents “Congress’ intent to refrain from interfering with the 9 manner in which state and local governments operate employee benefit systems.” Feinstein v. 10 Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1261 (S.D. N.Y. 1979), aff’d, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1980). Because 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 ERISA preemption is a defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove the facts necessary to 12 establish it. Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, 492 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 The interpretation of ERISA is a question of law. Farr v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 151 14 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1998), amended by 179 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 1999). 15 16 A. What Constitutes the “Employee Benefit Plan” As an initial matter, the parties dispute what constitutes the “employee benefit plan” in this 17 case. Citing Peterson v. American Life & Health Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 404 (9th Cir. 1995), Hariri 18 contends that the Reliance Policy should be viewed as a component of a multi-benefit plan 19 established for the County’s employees who are members of the GAA that included medical 20 insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance and life insurance, as well as LTD insurance. Hariri 21 contends that the County established the LTD component of this multi-benefit plan when it 22 purchased a LTD disability policy in 1992, paid 100% of the premium, and continued paying a 23 portion of the insurance premiums until the GAA and County entered the 2011 MOU. 24 Hariri acknowledges circumstances changed pursuant to the 2011 MOU, but nevertheless 25 asserts that the GAA “negotiated an agreement that it could keep the LTD plan if it wanted.” 26 Hariri’s Motion at 10:13-14. Hariri reasons that “[t]he GAA voted to keep LTD benefits, which 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 5 28 1 became part of the agreement between the County and the GAA, and mandatory LTD coverage 2 remained part of the employee benefits plan for [] the GAA. . . .” Hariri’s Motion at 10:13-16. 3 Two years later, when the County’s financial condition presumably improved, the County again 4 agreed to contribute to the LTD premium, rebated a portion of the premiums paid by employees 5 back to June 24, 2013, and eventually paid 100% of the premiums. 6 Although LTD coverage may have initially been part of a multi-benefit County plan 7 established in 1992, the County expressly removed LTD coverage from its benefit package when 8 it entered the 2011 MOU. Thereafter, the GAA, acting alone, established a committee to research 9 options for LTD coverage for its members; voted to obtain an LTD policy from Reliance; secured the Reliance Policy; was listed as the policyholder; and assumed sole responsibility for paying 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 100% of the premiums. From that point on, the LTD coverage was severed out and treated 12 differently from the rest of the benefits offered by the County. Therefore, the Court rejects 13 Hariri’s assertion that the LTD benefits should be treated as part of a multi-benefit plan 14 established by the County in 1992. See LaVenture v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 237 F.3d 15 1042 (9th Cir. 2001) (LTD coverage not “intertwined” with the County medical, vision, dental, 16 pension, or other benefits so as to be part of one overall benefits plan); c.f. Shaw v. Delta Air 17 Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 103 S.Ct. 2890 (1983) (benefits administered together treated as part of an 18 overall plan); Peterson v. American Life & Health Ins. Co., supra (like types of benefits for health 19 insurance treated as one plan); Gaylor v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 112 F.3d 460 (10th Cir. 20 1997) (plaintiff’s attempt to sever optional disability coverage from employer’s plan for accidental 21 death and dismemberment coverage “cannot be done because the [optional] coverage was a 22 feature of the Plan”). 23 B. Whether the County or the GAA “Established” the Plan Pursuant to a Collective 24 Bargaining Agreement 25 Reliance contends that the GAA, not the County, established the LTD plan, and therefore 26 the governmental plan exemption to ERISA preemption is not applicable. Reliance reasons that 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 6 28 1 under the 2011 MOU, the County relinquished its obligation to provide LTD coverage to attorney 2 employees who were members of GAA, after which it became GAA’s sole decision whether to 3 offer LTD coverage to its members. Reliance recounts all of the steps taken by the GAA to 4 research and ultimately purchase the Reliance policy as further evidence that the GAA 5 “established and maintained” the Reliance policy: the GAA contacted a broker, obtained data and 6 information to provide to insurance carriers to obtain bids, negotiated policy terms, voted to 7 arrange coverage from Reliance, became the named policyholder, and accepted various rights and 8 obligations under the terms of the Reliance policy. See Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial 9 Summary Judgment at pp.14-15. In Wilson v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.3d 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2015), 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 the court addressed whether the “governmental plan” exemption applied to a group insurance plan 12 created by a public school employees union, the WEA, and the defendant insurance carrier, 13 Provident, and providing coverage for non-government union employees and public school 14 employees. The Wilson court framed the issue as follows: “Because the Plan was apparently 15 created without direct involvement, the question becomes whether the Plan may be considered 16 government-established for some other reason, i.e. because it receives public funding.” Id. at 17 1044. 18 The Wilson court implicitly rejected the argument that public funding alone transformed 19 the WEA-Provident plan into a “governmental plan,” and next considered the plaintiff’s argument 20 that the school district permitted its employees to participate in the WEA-Provident plan and 21 facilitated the employment of the plan premiums via payroll deductions. The Wilson court stated: 22 “[i]t is clear from the evidence that the Plan anticipated and relied on school district participation; 23 without this, the plan would not have covered the government employees it was designed to cover 24 Id. Ultimately, however, the Wilson court found “dispositive” the fact that the plan at issue was 25 independently created by the WEA for the benefit of its employees along with government 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 7 1 employees, and “the evidence [did not] suggest that school districts (including plaintiff’s district) 2 played any direct role in the Plan’s creation.” Id. at 1045. 3 Like the plan in Wilson, the LTD plan at issue in this case was independently created by a 4 union, the GAA, through the purchase of the Reliance Policy, and the government entity, the 5 County, did not play any direct role in establishing that plan. Consistent with Wilson, and 6 drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, Reliance, a reasonable 7 factfinder could conclude that the LTD plan in this case was not “established” as a “governmental 8 plan” because the County was not involved in procuring the Reliance Policy and did not provide 9 funding for the Reliance Policy. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 C. Whether the County or the GAA “Maintained” the Plan Pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement 12 The Wilson decision, however, does not go so far as to foreclose a finding that the LTD 13 plan at issue is a “governmental plan.” Section §1002(32) defines a “governmental plan” as “a 14 plan established or maintained for its employees by a government body. See Roy v. Teachers Ins. 15 And Annuity Ass’n, 878 F.2d 47, 50 (2nd Cir. 1989) (plan is a governmental plan if it is either 16 established or maintained by a government body for its employees). The Wilson decision was 17 based upon a finding that the plan in that case was independently created by the WEA, and thus 18 was not “established” by a government body. The Wilson court did not fully analyze whether 19 a plan “established” by a non-governmental body could nevertheless be exempted from ERISA 20 preemption because a governmental body “maintained” the plan. Notably, the plan at issue in 21 Wilson was administered by codefendant, Unum Group. Id. at 1040. 22 In the present case, there is no evidence that the GAA employed a third party to administer 23 the LTD plan. Instead, Hariri has presented evidence showing that the County continued to 24 perform, without any interruption, all of the day-to-day administrative and claims processing 25 activities it had performed for years prior to the 2011 MOU. See Plaintiff’s Reply at 13:2. The 26 County received and distributed most of the Reliance Policy certificates through its HR 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 8 28 1 Department; posted the Reliance Policy certificate on the County’s website; and provided claim 2 assistance and claim forms. Id. 3 Further, it is undisputed that whenever Hariri had questions about her LTD coverage, she 4 contacted the County’s Human Relations Department, not the GAA. See Hariri Decl. at ¶9. 5 When she became disabled, Hariri obtained her Reliance claim forms from the County’s Human 6 Relations Department, not the GAA. Id. at ¶8. The County’s Human Relations Department, not 7 the GAA, assisted Hariri with completing the Reliance claims forms. Id. The claims examiner at 8 Reliance contacted the County Human Relations Department, not the GAA, to obtain Hariri’s 9 medical and payroll information. 10 Citing Peterson v. American Fidelity Assur. Co., 2013 WL 6047183 (D. Nev. 2013), United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Reliance characterizes the County’s involvement as purely “ministerial,” and too insignificant to 12 establish that the County “maintained” the plan. In Peterson, an employee organization 13 representing the public school teachers obtained a disability policy, negotiated the terms of the 14 policy with the insurer and endorsed the program to encourage its members to participate. The 15 public school employer provided salary information for use to market a disability plan, consented 16 to the use of school property to market the plan, conducted payroll deductions and agreed to remit 17 premiums to the insurer. The Peterson court ruled that the disability plan was not established or 18 maintained by the public school employer because the school’s administrative functions were 19 ministerial. 20 Unlike Peterson, the County involvement with the Reliance Policy was more extensive, as 21 outlined above. The present case is also distinguishable from Peterson in that the County expected 22 and was given an opportunity to review the Reliance Policy before it was purchased “in case there 23 may be some issues that are of concern for us, particularly since GAA is expecting the County to 24 provide that administration.” Defendant’s MSS 22. After reviewing the Reliance Policy, the 25 County sent GAA a list of discrepancies or suggested changes. See Plaintiff’s Responsive 26 Separate Statement 58. Further, in November of 2011, the GAA emailed the County questions 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 9 28 1 about the future administration of the plan, namely: is the County going to continue to start, stop 2 and re-start payroll deductions for employees enrolled in the GAA plan; is the County going to 3 continue to calculate the integration of sick leave and vacation balances; is the County going to 4 enter the integrated salary amount in the County’s HR/Payroll system; and is the County going to 5 provide/complete the employer portion of the claims form. A County representative, Peter Ng, 6 responded by asking whether continuing the “status quo for a period longer will not be 7 problematic for your group.” Plaintiff’s Motion at 4:24-25. The GAA representative, Kevin 8 Smith responded that “keeping the status quo is fine.” Id. at 4:27. 9 According to the GAA President, Max Zarzana, following the 2011 MOU, the County “de facto agreed to continue the day to day administration of the LTD plan exactly as it had before.” 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 See Zarzana Decl. at ¶8. The County’s functions in administering the LTD plan included, but 12 were not limited to: “maintaining records of who was insured, notifying Reliance of all individuals 13 eligible for coverage, maintaining a census of the people covered under the LTD plan, and making 14 all premium payments.” Id. at ¶9. 15 In addition, the County eventually provided indirect funding for the Reliance Policy by 16 giving employees a rebate. The rebate covered a portion of the premium costs County employees 17 paid between June 24, 2013 and February 2, 2014, which overlaps the effective period of the 2011 18 MOU by approximately three months. 19 In summary, the County performed numerous administrative day-to-day functions, assisted 20 Hariri with her disability forms, communicated with Reliance for purposes of administering the 21 Reliance Policy, and ultimately provided some of the funding for the Reliance Policy. Under the 22 totality of circumstances, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the 23 County “maintained” the LTD plan. 24 25 V. CONCLUSION The undisputed facts show that the County “maintained” the LTD plan at issue in this case, 26 and therefore the governmental plan exemption to ERISA preemption applies. Plaintiff’s cross- 27 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 10 28 1 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion for partial summary 2 judgment is DENIED. 3 4 5 6 7 8 A case management conference is scheduled for September 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file an updated joint case management statement no later than September 1, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 9, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:15-cv-03054-EJD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ERISA PREEMPTION; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?