Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. KERNS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG

ORDER

v.

MATHEW J. WENNER; HUGH

GAYLORD; EDWARD A. TREACY;

THOMAS SARNECKI; GEORGE

TEDESCHI; CHARLES KAMEN;

and JOHN D. BACHLER,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The following matters are before the Court: 1) motion for exclusion of Employee

Retirement Income Security Act rules and regulations filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 44);

2) motion to include Lincoln Financial Group as a defendant and increase the monetary

relief requested to $15,000,000 filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 59); 3) motion to include

civil mail fraud filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 66); 4) motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion

to include civil mail fraud filed by Defendant Mathew J. Wenner (ECF No. 67); 5)

motion for the entry of default against Lincoln Financial Group filed by Plaintiff (ECF

No. 69); and 6) request for the Court to issue an order filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 71).

Background

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Larry D. Kerns initiated this action by filing a

complaint against Defendants Mathew J. Wenner, Hugh Gaylord, Edward A. Treacy,

Thomas Sarnecki, George Tedeschi, Charles Kamen and John D. Bachler. (ECF No. 1). 

- 1 - 16cv02438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 76 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

Plaintiff seeks $3,000,000, in punitive damages, for alleged ADA and mail fraud

violations in relation to the management of a retirement plan covered by ERISA. Id.

at 2-3. In the answer to the complaint, Defendants deny the allegations of the complaint

and asset affirmative defenses based upon provisions of ERISA. (ECF No. 10).

Motion to Exclude All ERISA Rules and Regulations

Plaintiff contends that ERISA rules and regulations do not apply to claimants

“regarding a Civil lawsuit against an individual citizen of the United States of America”

after the conclusion of the benefit process. (ECF No. 44 at 3). Plaintiff contends that

Defendant bears the burden of showing ERISA’s applicability to the current actions. 

Id. Plaintiff contends that ERISA is not applicable in this matter, because the Board of

Appeals for the retirement fund described Plaintiff’s case to be “unique” in a

memorandum addressed to the Plaintiff. Id. at 4-7. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive “due to [an] alleged

delay in the award of his benefits” under a retirement plan. (ECF No. 49 at 2). Defendant

contends that “ERISA provides a comprehensive civil enforcement scheme” and none of

the provided remedies “include punitive damages.” Id.

ERISA provides “a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans” to

“‘protect . . . the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their

beneficiaries’ by setting out substantive regulatory requirements for employee benefit

plans and to ‘provid[e] for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the

Federal courts.’” Aetna Healthcare Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2000) (quoting

29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). In Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, Supreme Court of the United

States held “that ERISA’s civil enforcement remedies were intended to be exclusive.” 

481 U.S. 41, 54 (1987). The Supreme Court held “that the express pre-emption

provisions of ERISA are deliberately expansive, and designed to ‘establish pension plan

regulation as exclusively a federal concern.’” Id. at 55-56 (quoting Alessi v. RaybestosManhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations relating to damages for delay in

- 2 - 16cv02438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 76 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

receiving benefits relate to the administration of a plan covered by ERISA. Plaintiff’s

motion to exclude ERISA rules and regulations is denied. 

Motion to Include Lincoln Financial Group (“LFG”) as a Defendant and Adjust Requested Relief from $3,000,000 to $15,000,000

Plaintiff contends he served a summons “on a piece of the actual defend [sic],

Lincoln Financial Group; (such as that individual’s hand). No more summons or

service is required.” (ECF No. 59 at 2). Plaintiff contends he is already “indirectly

suing Lincoln.” Id. Plaintiff contends that if LFG becomes a defendant, then Plaintiff’s

request for monetary relief should be amended to $15,000,000. (ECF No. 59 at 1). 

Defendant contends that “Plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth any factual or legal

basis for” the inclusion of LFG as a defendant and the increased monetary relief

amount. (ECF No. 62 at 2-3). Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion is

procedurally improper pursuant to Local Rule 15.1(b). Id. (citing Civ. L. R. 15.1(b)).

After the defendant has filed an answer, a plaintiff may amend a complaint only

with “leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Leave to amend shall be “freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a);

see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, Local Rule 15(b) states:

Any motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by: (1) a copy of

the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed

amended pleading differs from the operative pleading. If the court grants the motion, the moving party must file and serve the amended pleading.

Civ. L. R. 15.1(b).

Plaintiff’s motion to include LFG as a defendant and increase the requested

monetary relief to $15,000,000 does not include “a copy of the proposed amended

pleading” or “a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows . . . how the

proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading.” Civ. L. R. 15.1(b). 

Plaintiff’s motion to include LFG as a defendant and increase the requested monetary

relief to $15,000,000 is denied.

Motion to Include Civil Mail Fraud

- 3 - 16cv02438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 76 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to include civil mail fraud as an

additional cause of action. (ECF No. 66). On May 16, 2017, Defendant moved to strike

the Plaintiff’s motion to include civil mail fraud as procedurally improper. (ECF No.

67). 

Plaintiff’s complaint identifies allegations of mail fraud. (ECF No. 1 at 1). 

Plaintiff’s motion to include civil mail fraud is denied. (ECF No. 66). Defendant’s

motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to include civil mail fraud is denied as moot. (ECF

No. 67). 

Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Plaintiff filed a motion to request the Court to enter default judgment against

LFG. (ECF No. 69). The Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion to include LFG as a

defendant. LFG is not a party to this proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of

default judgment against LFG is denied. 

Request for Court Order as to Defendant’s Counsel

Plaintiff moved the Court to issue an order requiring defense counsel to “furnish

Court and plaintiff with evidence of who his client is and how much liability insurance;

that client; has.” (ECF No. 72 at 2). Plaintiff contends that the motion premised on “an

informal phone conversation; Defence [sic]. Attorney Anderson explained to plaintiff

Kerns that he was retained by; his client was; the insurance company Providing liability

insurance for defendant Wenner.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that the insurance agency

that hired defense counsel may be a subsidiary of LFG. Id. Plaintiff contends that LFG

should have been aware of its subsidiary’s actions. Id.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established a legal or factual basis for

the Court to issue an order requiring defense counsel to supply information regarding

his client in this matter, or any liability insurance plan the client may posses. Plaintiff’s

request for a Court order as to Defendant’s Counsel is denied. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) motion for exclusion of Employee

- 4 - 16cv02438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 76 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

Retirement Income Security Act rules and regulations filed by Plaintiff is DENIED

(ECF No. 44); 2) motion to include Lincoln Financial Group as a defendant and

increase the monetary relief requested to $15,000,000 filed by Plaintiff is DENIED

(ECF No. 59); 3) motion to include civil mail fraud filed by Plaintiff is DENIED (ECF

No. 66); 4) motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to include civil mail fraud filed by

Defendant Mathew J. Wenner is DENIED (ECF No. 67); 5) motion for the entry of

default against Lincoln Financial Group filed by Plaintiff is DENIED (ECF No. 69);

and 6) request for the Court to issue an order filed by Plaintiff is DENIED. (ECF No.

71).

DATED: August 7, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 16cv02438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 76 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5