Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00893-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARI HARPER

Plaintiff(s),

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 06 CV 00893 AWI DLB

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

(Fed.R.Civ.P 16)

Motion re: Standard of Review:

Filing: September 21, 2007

Hearing: October 22, 2007

Trial Brief Deadlines: 

Filing: November 30, 2007

Hearing: December 21, 2007

Trial: January 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom 2 CT 1 days

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

July 6, 2007.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Stephen A. Cain appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Anna M. Martin appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. The Pleadings

A. Summary of the Pleadings

MARI HARPER (hereinafter “HARPER” or “plaintiff”) was an employed

as a Communications Manager at Doctor’s Medical Center, a subsidiary of Tenet Healthcare

Case 1:06-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 27 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 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 2

Corporation, the group policyholder of long term disability insurance, policy number 546864

003, issued by defendant UNUM to cover the qualified employees of Tenet Healthcare

Corporation and its subsidiaries. Said policy is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). Plaintiff

seeks to recover disability benefits and to enforce rights under the plan.

Plaintiff filed a claim for STD benefits on August 30, 2002, claiming that

as of May 26, 2002 she was unable to work as a Communications Manager because of multiple

injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 25, 2002. Plaintiff’s claim was paid from

July 25, 2002 to October 16, 2002. This lawsuit addresses UNUM’s decision to deny further

benefits to plaintiff. It is UNUM’s position that plaintiff was able to return to work on October

17, 2002, but she did not do so. Approximately, one month later, plaintiff lost her job. As such,

her coverage under the group LTD policy terminated. Plaintiff contends that she is totally

disabled under the terms of the LTD policy and therefore is entitled to LTD benefits. Based upon

the medical evidence from plaintiff’s treating physicians, the Social Security Administration has

declared the plaintiff to be permanently and totally disabled due to the head injuries she suffered

in the May 26, 2002, accident

B. Orders Re Amendment of Pleadings

No amendments are proposed at this time. 

IV. Standard of Review

The parties dispute whether the Court’s review will be limited to the

administrative record as it existed at the time UNUM rendered its written decision after appeal.

Plaintiff contends that the proper standard of review is de novo and defendant

maintains that the standard is “abuse of discretion” as set forth in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life

Insurance Co., 458 F.3rd 955 (9th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff shall file any motions regarding the standard of review no later than

September 21, 2007 and her motion shall be heard on or before October 22, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in

Case 1:06-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 27 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 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 3

Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States District Court Judge

Opening trial briefs shall be filed no later than November 30, 2007 and opposition

briefs shall be filed no later than December 21, 2007.

V. Trial Date

January 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, United States District Court Judge.

A. This is a court trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 1 days. 

C. Counsel's attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California, Rule 16-285.

VI. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the

agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for

this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be

met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be

made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered

unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 27 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 3