Cascaddan v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Filing
20
ORDER granting 17 Stipulated Motion for De Novo Standard of Review; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
1
THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
9
THOMAS CASCADDAN,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05402-RBL
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DE
NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff Thomas Cascaddan (“Cascaddan”) and Defendant The Prudential Insurance
16
Company of America (“Prudential”) (collectively, “Parties”), by and through their respective
17
counsel of record, hereby stipulate that for purposes of this case only, this Court shall apply a de
18
novo standard of review to Prudential’s decision denying Cascaddan’s claim for long-term
19
disability benefits at issue in this case, including without limit at trial, on summary judgment and
20
in all other proceedings and hearings. The parties further stipulate that this matter will be heard
21
on FRCP 52 motions for trial on the administrative record. Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175
22
F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999).
23
Prudential’s agreement that its decision shall be reviewed de novo is in recognition of the
24
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Orzechowski v. Boeing Co. Non-Union Long-Term
25
Disability Plan, No. 14-55919, 2017 WL 1947883, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. May 11, 2017), and
26
applies only to the Court’s review in this particular case.
27
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW
(No.: 3:17-cv-05402-RBL) - 1
119219.0023/7064235.1
LANE POWELL PC
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302
SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Notwithstanding anything in this Stipulation, the Parties agree that Prudential reserves its
right to assert that the abuse of discretion standard applies to its denial decision if, while this case
is still pending in this Court, (1) the Ninth Circuit grants a rehearing or a rehearing en banc in
Orzechowski; or (2) the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari in: (a) Orzechowski, or
(b) another case raising the same issue. The Parties further agree that, in the event that Prudential
elects to assert that the abuse of discretion standard applies, Prudential will promptly notify
Cascaddan of its intent and, moreover, Cascaddan will then have the right to file a motion to
determine the proper standard of review in this case even if the dispositive motion deadline has
passed.
The Parties jointly request their stipulation to be entered as an order of this Court
governing further proceedings in this action.
DATED: September 6, 2017.
13
14
ROY LAW
LANE POWELL PC
15
By s/ Chris Roy (per e-mail authorization)
Chris Roy, WSBA No. 29070
chris@roylawpdx.com
By s/ David W. Howenstine________
D. Michael Reilly, WSBA No. 14674
reillym@lanepowell.com
David W. Howenstine, WSBA No. 41216
howenstined@lanepowell.com
16
17
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Thomas Cascaddan
19
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
20
By s/ Tara Ellis
_______
Ian H. Morrison, Pro Hac Vice
imorrison@seyfarth.com
Tara Ellis, Pro Hac Vice
tellis@seyfarth.com
21
22
Attorneys for Defendant The
Prudential Insurance Company of America
23
24
25
26
27
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW
(No.: 3:17-cv-05402-RBL) - 2
119219.0023/7064235.1
LANE POWELL PC
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302
SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
ORDER
1
2
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Parties’ joint stipulation for de novo standard of review is
hereby APPROVED.
DATED this 13th day of September, 2017.
5
6
_______________________________
7
8
A
9
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW
(No.: 3:17-cv-05402-RBL) - 3
119219.0023/7064235.1
LANE POWELL PC
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302
SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
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?