Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00254/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00254-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M. TODD JENKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DLA PIPER LLP (US), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00254-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY AND DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE REMAINING 

MOTIONS 

Re: Dkt. No. 11

In this lawsuit, Jenks alleges that DLA Piper violated ERISA by, among other things,

misclassifying him under the firm's 2005 UNUM long term disability policy. DLA Piper has 

moved to dismiss on the ground that Jenks "waived" the ERISA claims because he asked an 

arbitrator to decide them and because she decided them adversely to him. DLA Piper alternatively 

moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. As a third alternative, DLA Piper moves to stay the 

case pending the outcome of Jenks' appeal in a prior related case. Finally, it moves to join UNUM 

as a necessary party. As discussed below, the motion to stay the case is granted, and the 

remaining motions are dismissed without prejudice to refiling them when the stay is lifted. 

1. In the prior related case, Jenks petitioned this Court to set aside the arbitrator's ruling on 

the ground that she misapplied ERISA. Among his arguments in the prior case was that the 

arbitrator misapplied ERISA when she denied his request for a declaration of his rights under the 

2005 UNUM policy. This Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

concluding that Jenks' allegations that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal law were, on 

the face of the petition, patently without merit. If it turns out, contrary to this Court's ruling in the 

prior case, that there is federal jurisdiction over the petition to set aside the arbitration, the issues 

presented by that petition and by this lawsuit will be best adjudicated together. 

Case 3:15-cv-00254-VC Document 32 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit's upcoming ruling on this Court's dismissal of the prior case 

could have an impact on this case. As mentioned above, in the first lawsuit this Court concluded 

that Jenks' allegations that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded ERISA law were, on the face of 

the petition, patently without merit. In that case, the Court (and the parties) neglected to focus on 

the possibility that the arbitrator should be deemed not to have ruled on the ERISA issues relating 

to the UNUM policy. But now that DLA Piper has made a "waiver" argument in this case, Jenks 

contends that the arbitrator did not actually decide the ERISA issues relating to the UNUM policy. 

He might be right about that, although the arbitrator's ruling is unclear on the point. If the 

arbitrator's ruling is best understood as not having decided the ERISA issues relating to the 

UNUM policy, presumably this would have been an additional reason to dismiss the petition to set 

aside the arbitration for lack of jurisdiction, at least to the extent the allegations of manifest 

disregard of federal law related to the UNUM policy.

The central ERISA dispute in the current case is whether Jenks is properly classified under 

the UNUM policy. That dispute will only have significant practical consequences if the plan 

administrator determines that Jenks is no longer disabled from performing "any occupation," but 

that he continues to be unable to perform his "own occupation." If the plan administrator makes 

such a determination, Jenks may file a motion to lift the stay, even if the Ninth Circuit has not yet 

decided his appeal in the prior case.

2. The motion to dismiss the complaint on the "waiver" grounds is denied without 

prejudice to raising the issue again after the stay is lifted. As mentioned above and as discussed 

more extensively at the hearing, there is a reasonable argument that the arbitrator didn't rule on 

these claims. If that is correct, DLA Piper would not have an argument that Jenks "waived" his 

claims in this lawsuit by presenting them to the arbitrator and receiving an adverse ruling on them. 

But since this case is being stayed, it is better to defer this question until after the Ninth Circuit 

issues its ruling in the prior case. 

It bears noting that doctrines other than "arbitration waiver" could warrant dismissal of this 

lawsuit based on Jenks' prior litigation conduct, even if it is ultimately determined that the 

arbitrator did not rule on the ERISA claims relating to the UNUM policy. For example, as 

Case 3:15-cv-00254-VC Document 32 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

discussed above, in his prior action to set aside the arbitrator's ruling, Jenks asserted that the 

arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal law in ruling against him on claims relating to the UNUM 

policy. It seems strange that Jenks could, after making such an argument, turn around and file a 

new lawsuit based on the premise that the arbitrator didn't decide those issues. It also may be that, 

if the arbitrator truly failed to rule on the UNUM claims, Jenks was required to raise this failure in 

state court. But DLA Piper's motion to dismiss this lawsuit on procedural grounds is limited to the 

argument that Jenks "waived" his claims relating to the UNUM policy because he had previously 

submitted them to the arbitrator and lost. 

3. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied without prejudice to 

renewing it after the stay is lifted. 

4. The motion to join UNUM as a necessary party is denied without prejudice to renewing 

it after the stay is lifted.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00254-VC Document 32 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 3