Appling v. Costco Employee Benefits Program et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/1/2013. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
JASON APPLING,

CV 13–93–M–DLC
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PROGRAM, with AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, as its
Administrator and/or Fiduciary,
Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Appling’s motion for summary judgment (doc.
10) based on a settlement entered into between the parties. Plaintiff seeks a
judgment pursuant to the purported settlement on the liability of Defendant Aetna
for past and future medical benefits and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The
Plaintiff has not complied with L.R. 7.1(c)(1), which requires that the text of the
motion must state that the Defendant was contacted and further state whether
Defendant objects to the motion.
Nevertheless, Defendant has filed a response to this motion, wherein
Defendant “Aetna stipulates and agrees that the parties entered into a settlement of
this ERISA action at the literal inception of this case, and shortly after Aetna filed
an answer to plaintiff’s Complaint.” Defendant goes on to further stipulate and
agree that “the parties were unable to agree to the amount of the plaintiff’s
1

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in this matter.” Other than these stipulations,
Defendant’s response is silent as to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The Plaintiff is urging the Court to enter a judgment consistent with the
terms and conditions of the alleged settlement agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to
Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts. (Doc. 11-1.) Exhibit 1 is a letter to
plaintiff’s counsel, presumably written by an Aetna representative, memorializing
an agreement to resolve the subject case pursuant to certain expressed conditions,
including the payment by Aetna of “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” This
letter indicates that the case will be finalized by the filing of a stipulated dismissal
with prejudice.
The parties have been unable to agree to the amount of attorney’s fees and
costs. Thus, the parties have not filed the stipulated dismissal with prejudice, and
instead Plaintiff has filed this motion for summary judgment, and apparently will
then file a Rule 54(d) motion designed to involve the Court in the resolution of the
dispute regarding the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, assuming the Court
grants summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
This case is not settled, due to the lack of agreement between the parties as
to the “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” to be paid to Plaintiff. Until this
issue is resolved, and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice is filed with the Court

2

as agreed by the parties, the Court will not involve itself in these ongoing
settlement negotiations.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of October, 2013.

3