Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03335/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03335-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA FREDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03335 JSW

TENTATIVE RULING AND

QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 1, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant BC Life & Health Insurance Company’s

(“BC Life”) petition to compel binding arbitration.

Case 3:06-cv-03335-JSW Document 23 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Why should the Court consider Fredrickson’s opposition to the petition which

was due by Court order to be filed no later than August 18, 2006 but was filed

without explanation on November 1, 2006? 

2. There are several conflicting representations regarding the effective date of the

subject arbitration provision. BC Life’s opening brief states that the provision

became effective on August 16, 2004. (Motion at 2.) The copy of the plan,

attached to the Declaration of Ronald R. Odom in support of the motion, is dated

effective September 1, 2005. (Odom Decl., Ex. A.) BC Life’s Vice President of

Account Management, Susan Ohanian, declares on reply that the Student Health

Insurance Program has continuously been insured by BC Life since its original

effective date of September 1, 1989. (Ohanian Decl., ¶ 4.) What is the effective

date of the arbitration provision at issue in this case?

3. On what basis does Fredrickson contend that California Health and Safety Code

applies to BC Life which is licensed and regulated by the Department of

Insurance and subject to regulation under the Insurance Code? If the arbitration

agreement became effective prior to the enactment of the applicable disclosures

regulation, on what basis does Fredrickson contend that the policy is invalid for

failure to comply? (See Wolitarksy v. Blue Cross, 53 Cal. App. 4th 338, 348

(1997).) 

4. Should the Court grant the petition, does BC Life, or Fredrickson, request that

the Court stay the entire matter, including as to the remaining defendants,

pending determination of Fredrickson’s dispute with BC Life in the arbitral

forum?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03335-JSW Document 23 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2