Driscoll v. MetLife Insurance et al

Filing 76

ORDER Granting 64 Motion to Reopen Case. The Court agrees and thus grants Plaintiff's Motion only insofar as it seeks to reopen the case. For this reason the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's simultaneously filed Requests for Judici al Notice. As for briefing on the merits, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a briefing schedule for cross motions and submit to the Court an agreed-upon briefing schedule, if possible, on or before fourteen (14) days from the date on w hich this Order is electronically docketed. Thereafter the Court will set a briefing schedule to assess the merits of Plaintiff's claims that Defendant MetLife failed to conduct a full and fair review of Plaintiff's appeal. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/8/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN JOSEPH DRISCOLL,

Case No.: 15-CV-1162 JLS (JMA)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN CASE

v.
METLIFE INSURANCE; ANHEUSERBUSCH INBEV INC.; and JOHN
DOE(S),

15
16

(ECF No. 64)

Defendants.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Driscoll’s Revised Motion to Reopen

19

Case. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 64.) Also before the Court is Defendants’ response in opposition

20

to, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 66), and Plaintiff’s reply in support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 74),

21

Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court vacated the hearing on the matter and took it under

22

submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 75.)

23

After considering the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

24

Motion.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
15-CV-1162 JLS (JMA)

1

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on May 26, 2015, alleging eleven 1 causes of

2

action: (1) breach of contract against Defendant MetLife, (2) failure to provide plan/policy

3

documents in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)(B) (“Section 1132”) against Defendant

4

ABC, (3) interference of rights under ERISA in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (“Section

5

1140”) against Defendant MetLife, (4) LTD plan benefits under Section 1132(a)(1)(B)

6

against Defendant MetLife, (6) other equitable relief pursuant to Section 1132(a)(3)(B)

7

against Defendants, (7) attorney’s fees under Section 1132(g)(1) against Defendants, (8)

8

“relief requested” against Defendants, (9) breach of contract against Defendant ABC, (10)

9

failure to provide plan policy documents in violation of Section 1132(c)(1)(B) against

10

Defendant MetLife, (11) failure to provide claims denial plan documents in violation of

11

Section 1132(c)(1)(B) against Defendant MetLife, and (12) deceit pursuant to California

12

Civil Code § 1710 (“Section 1710”) and punitive damages pursuant to California Civil

13

Code § 3294 (“Section 3294”) against Defendant MetLife. (See generally Compl., ECF

14

No. 1.)

15

On May 2, 2016, after considerable motion practice, the Court issued an omnibus

16

Order on the parties’ pending motions and remanded Plaintiff’s case to Defendant MetLife

17

to provide a full and fair review of Plaintiff’s appeal. (See generally Order, ECF No. 38.)

18

The Court also invited any party to move to reopen the case after the administrative review.

19

(Id. at 38.2)

20

Plaintiff now moves to reopen his case. (See generally Mot.) Specifically, Plaintiff

21

argues that Defendant MetLife “failed to conduct a fair and full appellate review of

22

Plaintiff’s appeal in accordance with Plan terms and ERISA and Department of Labor’s

23

regulations as ordered by this Court on May 02, 2016.” (Mot. 13.) After a review of

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Complaint mistakenly numbers causes of action five through eleven as six through twelve.
(See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) For simplicity’s sake, the Court will refer to Plaintiff’s causes of
action as numbered by Plaintiff.
1

2

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
2
15-CV-1162 JLS (JMA)

1

Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court concludes that Plaintiff should have an opportunity to

2

present to the Court his grievances with Defendant MetLife’s appellate review.

3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 64).3

4

However, Plaintiff’s Motion further requests that the Court should “grant judgment in

5

Plaintiff’s favor due to Defendant MetLife[’s] failure to process and complete the

6

administrative appeal process in accordance with Plan terms . . . .” (Mot. 13; see also id. at

7

70–71 (requesting, among other things, that the Court order Defendant to pay him his past

8

due and future benefits).) Such a request is inappropriate because the full administrative

9

record is not before the Court. Indeed, Defendant MetLife specifically asks that “should

10

this Court grant [Plaintiff’s] request to reopen this case, before the Court issues any

11

decision, it should set a briefing schedule for Rule 52 cross-motions for judgment and

12

conduct a full review of the entire Administrative Record developed by MetLife.” (Opp’n

13

26.) The Court agrees and thus grants Plaintiff’s Motion only insofar as it seeks to reopen

14

the case. As for briefing on the merits, the parties SHALL meet and confer regarding a

15

briefing schedule for cross motions and submit to the Court an agreed-upon briefing

16

schedule, if possible, on or before fourteen (14) days from the date on which this Order is

17

electronically docketed. Thereafter the Court will set a briefing schedule to assess the

18

merits of Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant MetLife failed to conduct a full and fair review

19

of Plaintiff’s appeal.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

For this reason the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s simultaneously filed Requests for Judicial
Notice (ECF Nos. 64, 74).
3

3
15-CV-1162 JLS (JMA)