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)

Download PDF
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?