Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

United 

States District 

Court 

For the Western District of Washington 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS A. GONDA, JR., M.D., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 

in its capacity as Plan 

Administrator; THE PERMANENTE 

MEDICAL GROUP, INC. LONG TERM 

DISABILITY PLAN FOR PHYSICIANS, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:11-CV-01363 SC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT 

 Plaintiff filed this action bringing claims under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and for breach of 

fiduciary duty. On February 17, 2015, the Court granted 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Gonda had 

waived his ERISA benefits when he signed a settlement agreement in 

November 2011. ECF No. 102 ("SJ Order"). Plaintiff now moves the 

Court to order a new trial or to alter or amend the summary 

judgment order. ECF No. 104 ("Mot."). For the reasons described 

herein, the Motion is DENIED. 

 "Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a 

judgment if '(1) the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error 

or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) 

there is an intervening change in controlling law.'" United Nat'l 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 108 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Western District of Washington 

Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 

740 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, Plaintiff has not shown that there is 

newly-discovered evidence, that the Court committed clear error or 

made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or that there 

was an intervening change in controlling law. 

Mr. Gonda raises two issues of law that he claims were not 

fully addressed by the Court: (1) whether defendants waived the 

affirmative defense of release because the insurer, Life Insurance 

Company of North America ("LINA"), did not rely on the settlement 

agreement in denying Mr. Gonda's claim for long term disability 

benefits during the administrative appeal process (Mot. at 5-7), 

and (2) whether the settlement agreement encompassed Mr. Gonda's 

claim for disability benefits under the ERISA plan (Id. at 7-8). 

Both of these issues were fully litigated (ECF No. 71 ("SJ Opp'n") 

at 21:17-22:5; 24:24-27; 26:10-12; 25:2-28:6)) and fully addressed 

in the Court's Order (SJ Order at 7:15-10:17; 11:17-12:15; 20:9-19; 

21:12-22:19). None of the arguments set forth in Plaintiff's 

Motion give the Court cause to doubt its reasoning. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June , 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 108 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2