Hoffman v. American Society for Techion-Israel Institute of Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER: (1) Denying Plaintiff's 103 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment; (2) Dismissing Remaining Claim for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiff may move to re-open this action if the remaining claim ripens for review. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/26/2013.(knb)

1

FILED······

2

MAR 2' 7'2013 .

3

CLERK. U.S. OlstRICT roURT

SOUTHERN DISTR1CT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BY

DEPUTY

5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CASE NO. 09-CV-2482 BEN (KSC)

STANLEY HOFFMAN, Individually,
and on behalf of the Estate of
PHYLLIS HOFFMAN,

ORDER:
(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Docket No.1 03]

Plaintiff,

13
VS.

14
15

16
17

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
TECHNION-ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; et aI.,

18

Defendants.

(2) DISMISSING REMAINING
CLAIM FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

19
20

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Order

21

Granting Partial Summary Judgment. (Docket No.1 03.) For the reasons stated below,

22

the Motion is DENIED. In addition, the remaining claim is DISMISSED for lack of

23

jurisdiction.

24
25

BACKGROUND
The facts ofthis case are laid out in the Order (1) Granting Defendants' Motion

26

for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance Benefits and (2) Denying Plaintiffs

27

Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance Benefits. (Docket No. 96.)

28

On November 5,2009, Plaintiff filed suit individually and on behalf ofthe estate

- 1-

09CV2482

1

of his late wife, Ms. Phyllis Hoffman. (Docket No.1.) The First Amellded Complaint

2

(the operative complaint) names American Society for Technion-Israel Instit1J.te of

3

Technology, Inc. ("ATS"), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, First Reliance
J

'.

..

4

Standard Life Insurance Company, and the American Society for Technion-Israel

5

Institute of Technology, Inc. Group Life Insurance Benefit Plan] ("ATS Group Life

6

Insurance Benefit Plan") as defendants.

(Docket No. 27.) The First Amended

7 Complaint alleges four claims: (1) life insurance benefits under 29 U.S.C. §
8

1132(a)(1)(B); (2) denial of severance benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1 )(B); (3)

9

life insurance benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) (equitable estoppel); and (4) life

10

insurance benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) (surcharge). (Jd.)

11

On August 21,2012, the third and fourth claims were dismissed. (Docket No.

12

55.) On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against All

13

Defendants on the Issue of Life Insurance Benefits. (Docket No. 75.) However, the

14

Court denied this motion as untimely because Plaintiff did not request modification of

15

the Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. (Docket

16 No. 83.) On January 24, 2013, the Court granted ATS and the ATS Group Life
17

Insurance Benefit Plan's Motion for Partial Summary JudgmentRe: Severance Benefits

18 and denied Plaintiffs Cross'-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance
19

Benefits. (Docket No. 96.) On February 12, 2013, the Court granted First Reliance

20

Standard Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary JudgmentRe: Life Insurance

21

Benefits. (Docket No. 100.) On February 21, 2013, the Court granted Metropolitan

22

Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Life Insurance Benefits.

23

(Docket No. 102.) There is now one outstanding claim: the claim for life insurance

24

benefits against ATS and ATS Group Life Insurance Benefit Plan.

25

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration of Order

26

Granting Partial Summary Judgment. (Docket No.1 03.) Being fully briefed, the Court

27
28

1 The American Society for Technion-Israel Institute ofTechnology , Inc. Group Life Insurance
Benefit Plan was erroneously named as the American Technion Society Employee Benefit Plan in the
First Amended Complaint.

-2-

09CV2482

1

finds the Motion suitable for determination on the papers without ,,Oral argument,

2

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.l.
DISCUSSION

3

.

;

4

I.

5

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration ofthe Order (1) Granting Defendants' Motion for

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

6 Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance Benefits and (2) Denying Plaintiffs Cross-

7 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance Benefits (Docket No. 96), in
8

which the Court granted summary judgment in favor of ATS and ATS Group Life

9 Insurance Benefit Plan on the second claim, which challenged the Plan Administrator's
10

decision to deny Ms. Hoffman severance benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).

11

This Court found that Ms. Hoffman was ineligible for severance benefits because her

12

decision to leave full-time employment due to health difficulties was a "voluntary

13

resignation."

14

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, "any order ... that adjudicates fewer

15

than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties ... may be

16

revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all

17

the parties' rights and liabilities." FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Under Local Rule 7. 1(i)(1),

18

a party may apply for reconsideration of an order "[w]henever any motion or any

19 application or petition for any order or other reliefhas been made to any judge and has
20

been refused in whole or in part." S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i). The moving party must

21

provide the court with an affidavit setting forth "what new or different facts and

22

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown." Id. Courts

23

will generally reconsider a decision ifa party can show: (1) new evidence; (2) new law;

24

or (3) clear error in the court's prior decision. Sch. Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah Cnty. v.

25 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision on a motion for
26

reconsideration lies in the court's sound discretion. Navajo Nation v. Confederated

27

Tribes o/the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041,1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

28

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration does not comply with Rule 7.1 (i)(1).
-3-

09CV2482

1 Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit or certified statement with the Motion. In addition,
2

Plaintiff has not presented new facts or circumstances not presented in PlaiQtiff s

3

Summary Judgment papers.

4

arguments and citations previously rejected by the Court. ,"A motion for

5

reconsideration is not an opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by

6

the court, nor is it an opportunity for a party to re-argue a motion because it is

7

dissatisfied with the original outcome." Devinsky v. Kingsford, No. 05 Civ 2064, 2008

8

WL 2704338, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 10,2008). A court need not consider a motion for

9

reconsideration relying on arguments previously made and ruled on. See Nunes v.

10

11

Moreover, the Motion preseI}ts many of the same

Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff argues that he has discovered a recent case, Stephan v. Unum Life

12 Insurance Company ofAmerica, 697 F .3d 917 (9th Cir. 2012). However, Stephen was

13

filed on September 12,2012, two months before PlaintifIfiled the Cross-Motion for

14

Partial Summary Judgment Re: Severance Benefits on November 16,2012. It is not

15

new law.

16

Even considered on the merits, Plaintiff s argument fails. Stephan concerned an

17

insurer's failure to include the claimant's bonus in his pre-disability earnings when

18

calculating disability benefits, reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at

19

922-24. In interpreting an offer letter, the court found that Stephan was guaranteed a

20

bonus on the condition that he "perform at the level both he and [his employer]

21

anticipated and that Stephan not voluntarily terminate his employment or be terminated

22

for cause prior to the relevant payment dates." Id. at 936 (alterations omitted). In

23

reviewing the insurer's interpretation ofthe offer letter, the court commented, "Stephan

24

was certainly not 'terminated for cause.' Nor is it sensible to understand his inability

25

to work due to disability as a voluntary termination of employment." Id. The court

26

does not discuss the meaning of "voluntary termination" further.

27

Stephan can be distinguished from the present case. First, the court in Stephan

28

reviewed the insurer's decision under an abuse ofdiscretion standard, while this Court
-4-

09CV2482

1

interpreted the Plan at issue here under a de novo standard. Second, the court in

2

Stephan reviewed an offer letter, while this Court reviewed an ERISA plan. In

3

addition, this Court's interpretation of the Plan, reviewed under a de novo standard,

4

takes into consideration the particular context and terms of the Plan at issue here.

5

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Partial
Summary Judgment is DENIED.

7

II.

8

There is one claim remaining in this action: the claim for life insurance benefits

9

JURISDICTION OVER REMAINING CLAIM

against ATS and ATS Group Life Insurance Benefit Plan.

10

During the March 11, 2013 Status Conference, the parties conveyed to the Court

11

that Plaintiff filed a claim for life insurance benefits with Metropolitan Life Insurance

12

Company on February 25, 2013. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has 90 days

13

to respond to this claim. The parties have agreed that if Metropolitan Life Insurance

14

Company pays Plaintiff life insurance benefits, this case will.be resolved.

15

Because Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has not yet decided whether to

16

grant Plaintiff s claim, this case is not yet ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, the

17 remaining claim is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. Plaintiff may move to re-open
18

this action if the remaining claim ripens for review.

19

CONCLUSION

20
21

F or the reasons stated above, Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.

22

In addition, the remaining claim is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction, because

23

it is not ripe for review. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Plaintiff may move

24

to re-open this action if the remaining claim ripens for review.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

DATED:

March~ 2013

28
- 5-

09CV2482