Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00225/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00225-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1131 E.R.I.S.A. Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

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 

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

Stipulation re Relief and Bifurcation 

MARC I. MACHIZ 

R. JOSEPH BARTON – CA State Bar No. 212340 

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, 

P.L.L.C. 

1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone: (202) 408-4600 

Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 

E-mail: MMachiz@CMHT.com 

JEFFREY LEWIS – CA State Bar No. 66587 

VINCENT CHENG – CA State Bar No. 230827 

MICHELLE ROBERTS – CA State Bar No. 239092 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

E-mail: jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES W. SIMPSON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant, 

and 

FIREMAN'S FUND MEDICAL PLAN, 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE 

RELIEF AND BIFURCATION 

[Civil L.R. 7-12] 

WHEREAS, Paragraph D of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief in the Complaint seeks, as an 

element of relief for the alleged ERISA violation of Defendants, reinstatement of Plaintiff and 

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 38 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

Stipulation re Relief and Bifurcation 

other LTD Group Class Members1 to employment with Defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance 

Company (“FFIC”), as though their employment had never been terminated; 

WHEREAS, Paragraphs E and F of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief seek on behalf of Plaintiff 

and the LTD Group Class Members (1) reinstatement to FFIC’s medical and other employee 

benefit plans (“the Plans”) retroactive to their respective termination dates, and (2) requests that 

Plaintiff and the LTD Group Class Members be placed in the same position that they would have 

been in had Defendant FFIC not terminated their employment; 

WHEREAS, Paragraph F of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief seeks, on behalf of Plaintiff and 

the LTD Group Class Members, among other things, reimbursement of sums they paid for nonFFIC medical, dental, and/or vision coverage from the dates of their respective terminations to the 

time judgment is entered which Plaintiff and the Class contend would have been paid for by one 

or more of the FFIC welfare benefit plans if they had not been unlawfully discharged; 

WHEREAS, Defendants have requested discovery from the LTD Group Class Members 

who have received retirement plan distributions concerning whether they are receiving Social 

Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”), how the distributions have been spent, and the extent to 

which those moneys are available to return to the Plans; 

WHEREAS, Defendants have also requested discovery from the LTD Group Class 

Members regarding the sums, if any, they have expended on non-FFIC medical, dental, and/or 

vision coverage, and the sums, if any, they expended on medical, dental, and/or vision care they 

contend should have been paid for by one of the FFIC welfare benefit plans; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the Class have moved to quash the subpoenas issued on or 

about December 30, 2005 by Defendants’ attorneys to certain of the LTD Group Class Members, 

on the grounds that, among other things, such discovery is not relevant to any claims or relief 

sought in this case; 

 

1

 The “LTD Group Class Members” are defined for purposes of this Stipulation and Order as 

those members of the certified Class whose FFIC employment was terminated on or after 

July 1, 2004 as a result of the application of the amended leave of absence policy 

described in the Complaint. 

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 38 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

Stipulation re Relief and Bifurcation 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the Class alternatively argue in their motion to quash the 

subpoenas that even if discovery regarding relief is appropriate, it should be postponed until after 

a liability determination has been made and all common issues have been resolved; 

WHEREAS, Defendants have also expressed their desire to take the depositions of some 

LTD Group Class Members; 

WHEREAS, all discovery concluded on January 31, 2006; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the discovery from the LTD Group Class 

Members who have received retirement plan distributions concerning whether they are receiving 

SSDI, how the distributions have been spent, and the extent to which those moneys are available 

to return to the plans would be unnecessary if Plaintiff did not seek automatic reinstatement of all 

LTD Group Members as an item of potential relief; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants further agree that the balance of the discovery 

described above would be premature at this time, provided that Defendants are allowed a 

reasonable time to conduct discovery regarding any individual issues concerning the relief sought 

by Plaintiff and the LTD Group Class Members in the event a determination of liability is made 

and the Court permits discovery after Plaintiff has had the opportunity to assert any objections to 

such discovery. 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the Parties hereto, that: 

1. To the extent Paragraphs D, E, and F of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief seek 

retroactive reinstatement of LTD Group Class Members (defined as those members of the 

certified Class whose employment was terminated on or after July 1, 2004 as a result of the 

application of the Amended Leave of Absence Policy described in Paragraph 17 of the 

Complaint) to employment and participation in the Plan(s), those Paragraphs seek only an order 

requiring Defendant FFIC to offer the LTD Group Class Members reinstatement to employment 

and to participation in the Plans. Plaintiff and the Class do not seek an order mandating that all 

LTD Group Class Members be automatically reinstated to employment and to participation in the 

Plans, but rather that any such LTD Group Class Member shall have a one-time election to accept 

such reinstatement, subject to the terms and conditions, if any, determined and imposed by the 

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 38 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

Stipulation re Relief and Bifurcation 

Court. Nothing herein shall preclude Plaintiff from seeking such other relief in addition to 

reinstatement to employment and employee benefit plan participation. 

2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be read as constituting 

agreement by Plaintiff or the Class to any of the following: (a) that reinstatement may under any 

circumstances be conditioned on the repayment of any pension distribution (defined benefit or 

401(k)); (b) that if the Court decides that repayment of a pension distribution may under some 

circumstances be required as a condition of reinstatement to employment, those circumstances 

exist for any particular Class Member; or (c) that any retroactive premiums will be required as a 

condition of reinstatement to participation in any of the Plan(s). 

3. All discovery related to issues common to the Class, including, but not limited to 

(a) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to relief, (b) the nature and type of relief available 

to Plaintiff and the Class, and (c) the circumstances under which such relief sought by Plaintiff 

and the Class may be obtained by Plaintiff and the Class shall be closed as of January 31, 2006. 

4. The proceedings in this case shall be bifurcated only as provided herein. All issues 

regarding (a) liability and (b) common questions related to relief, including any argument that any 

relief sought by the Class requires or does not require examination of the individual 

circumstances of any member of the Class shall be addressed in any motion for summary 

judgment (should any party choose to address any such issue by such motion) and/or at the trial in 

this case. 

5. Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and any properly 

issued subpoenas to LTD Group Class Members which have not been withdrawn shall be held in 

abeyance and Defendants shall not seek to enforce any such discovery or promulgate new 

discovery on individual class member issues until after a decision on the merits as described in 

Paragraph 4 has been issued. 

6. Defendants will not seek to take the depositions of any LTD Group Class 

Members prior to a decision on the merits as to any common issues. 

7. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be read as constituting 

agreement by Plaintiff or the Class that any discovery that may be sought by Defendants is 

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 38 Filed 02/13/06 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

Case No. C 05-00225 CW 

Stipulation re Relief and Bifurcation 

relevant or otherwise proper; provided, however, that Plaintiff and the Class shall not object to 

any such discovery on the ground that it was not completed by January 31, 2006. 

8. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed as an agreement by Defendants that 

Plaintiff or any LTD Group Class Member is entitled to any remedy regardless of the Court’s 

ruling on the merits. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: February 8, 2006 COHEN, MILLSTEIN, HAUSFELD, & TOLL, P.L.L.C. 

 LEWIS, FEINBERG, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 

 s/Jeffrey Lewis 

 By: Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: February 8, 2006 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

 s/D. Ward Kallstrom 

 By: D. Ward Kallstrom, Esq. 

 Donald P. Sullivan, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2/13/06 /s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN 

Dated: _________________ 

Hon. Claudia Wilken 

U.S. District Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 38 Filed 02/13/06 Page 5 of 5