SOJITRA v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER denying 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment D.E. 6 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendants must file an Answer within twenty (20) days of receipt of this Opinion and Order; etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 06/27/2018. (sms)

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MTNA SOJITRA,
Plaint
Civil Action No. 17-7230 (JMV)
V.

OPINION & ORDER
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY & VERIZON WIRELESS LONG
TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff Mina Sojitra (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and Verizon Wireless Long Term
Disability Plan (“Verizon”) (collectively “Defendants”). D.E. 1. Currently pending before this
Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint or, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment. D.E. 6. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition, D.E 9, to which Defendants
replied,D.E. 11.’
The crux of Plaintiffs Complaint is that Plaintiff was a Verizon employee, who due to a
disability, pursued Long Ten-n Disability (“LTD”) Benefits from Verizon’s claim administrator,
MetLife. Complaint (“Compi.”)

¶

7-1 1; D.E. 1. Plaintiff claims that MetLife never formally

In this Opinion, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.E. 6) will be referred to as “DeL BrL”
Plaintiffs brief in opposition (D.E. 9) will be referred to as “P1. Opp.” Defendants’ reply brief
(D.E. 11) will be referred to as “Def. Rep.”

denied her LTD benefits request, and, so, she has been unable to exhaust her administrative
remedies through the requisite appeals process. Id.

¶ 25-8.

However, in their motion, Defendants

claim that MetLife sent a formal denial of LTD benefits to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff did not appeal
within the allotted 180 days. Def. Brf. at 2-3. Defendants attached several exhibits to their motion:
1) “Your Benefit Plan--Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless
and Affiliates” (Ex. A; D.E. 6-3);
2) “Managed Disability Summary Plan Description--Verizon
Wireless” (Ex. B; D.E. 6-4);
3) Letter from MetLife to Plaintiffs Counsel dated November 14,
2012 (Ex. C; D.E. 6-5);
4) Letter from Plaintiffs Counsel to MetLife on February 23, 2013
(Ex. D; D.E. 6-5);
5) Letter from MetLife to Plaintiffs Counsel dated July 18, 2013
(Ex. E.; D.E. 6-5);
6) Letter from MetLife to Plaintiffs Counsel dated September 16,
2013 (Ex. F; D.E. 6-5);
7) E-mail from Plaintiffs Counsel to MetLife dated August 29,
2016 (Ex. G; D.E. 6-5).
As a general nile, a “[flailure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense
that must be pled and proven by the defendant.” Brown v. Croak, 312 f.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir.
2002). However, under appropriate circumstances, a “failure to exhaust may be raised as the basis
for a motion to dismiss.” Id. Here, however, Defendants have not filed an Answer, asserting the
affirmative defense of Plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Instead. Defendants
submitted the current motion with the documents, named above, as attachments. Discovery has
not commenced in this matter.

2

Reviewing the documents that were submitted, the Court cannot definitively conclude that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Instead, the Court finds that discovery on
the issue is appropriate.
For these reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 27th day of June, 201$,
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.E. 6)is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ alternate motion for summary judgment (D.E. 6) is DENIED
without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must file an Answer within twenty (20) days of receipt of this
Opinion and Order.2

John Michael Vazqu, UD.J.

2

The Court leaves it to the sound discretion of the Magistrate Judge as to whether discovery
should, at first, be limited to the administrative remedy exhaustion issue.
3