Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04172/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04172-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING CASE (C 05-4172 SC) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

D. WARD KALLSTROM, State Bar No. 076937 

DONALD P. SULLIVAN, State Bar No. 191080 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: 415.442.1000 

Fax: 415.442.1001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

URS CORPORATION SHORT & LONG TERM 

DISABILITY PLAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCO C. LOBASCIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

URS CORPORATION SHORT & LONG 

TERM DISABILITY PLAN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. C 05-4172 SC 

SECOND STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE 

DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT 

HAS NECESSITATED SUBSTITUTION 

OF COUNSEL 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Marco C. Lobascio (“Plaintiff”) brought the above-titled action 

against the URS Corporation Short & Long Term Disability Plan (“Plan”) on or about October 

14, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the Plan is a fully-insured employee welfare benefit plan, as that term is 

defined in section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 1002(1); 

WHEREAS, since January 1, 1999, the disability benefits payable from the Plan have 

been paid by an insurance policy issued to the Plan by the Life Insurance Company of North 

America (“LINA”); 

WHEREAS, before January 1, 1999, the disability benefits payable from the Plan were 

paid by the UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”); 

WHEREAS, the Plan tendered the defense of this case to LINA, and LINA accepted the 

Case 3:05-cv-04172-SC Document 28 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING CASE (C 05-4172 SC) 

tender and hired the law firm of Green & Humbert to defend the Plan in this action; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the Plan attended a mediation session on May 24, 2006 with 

Catherine A. Yanni, Esq. acting as mediator; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff was represented at the mediation by counsel, Timothy J. Fricker and 

James G. Mellen of Fricker & Mellen & Associates, and the Plan was represented by counsel, C. 

Mark Humbert and Joanne M. Ryan of Green & Humbert; 

WHEREAS, counsel for the Plan and LINA learned for the first time at the mediation that 

Plaintiff had received long-term disability benefits from UNUM on account of his disabling 

condition; 

WHEREAS, counsel for the Plan and LINA learned subsequent to the mediation that 

UNUM paid disability benefits to Plaintiff from 1998 to sometime in 2000 when it terminated his 

benefits; 

WHEREAS, as part of the settlement of the lawsuits against UNUM brought by 49 states 

and the U.S. Department of Labor, UNUM agreed to reassess its denial of claims for certain 

disability benefits; 

WHEREAS, counsel for the Plan and LINA recently learned that Plaintiff has elected to 

participate in the reassessment program, and that UNUM is in the process of reassessing its 

termination of Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits; 

WHEREAS, if UNUM improperly terminated Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits, 

UNUM, and not LINA, is the insurer that is likely to be required to provide Plaintiff the benefits 

he is seeking by way of this lawsuit; 

WHEREAS, the fact that UNUM, and not LINA, may be the proper defendant in this case 

means that LINA may have to seek the joinder of UNUM in this action and sue UNUM to 

recover the benefits it has already paid to Plaintiff; 

WHEREAS, the fact that LINA may need to take a position adverse to UNUM has 

necessitated a substitution of counsel for the Plan and LINA in this matter because Green & 

Humbert presently represents UNUM in other disability benefit matters; 

WHEREAS, LINA recently retained Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (“Morgan Lewis”) to 

Case 3:05-cv-04172-SC Document 28 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING CASE (C 05-4172 SC) 

represent it and the Plan in this matter; 

WHEREAS, the Court signed the Order permitting Morgan Lewis to substitute in as 

counsel for the Plan in this matter on Tuesday, August 29, 2006; 

WHEREAS, the Court has established a December 8, 2006 deadline for filing dispositive 

motions in this action; 

WHEREAS, the Court entered an order on September 5, 2006 vacating all pre-trial 

deadlines and setting a hearing on dispositive motions for January 12, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the Court’s September 5, 2006 Order stated that the parties were to inform 

the Court if UNUM had not completed its reassessment of Plaintiff’s claim by December 2006, 

and that the parties may seek modification of the September 5, 2006 Order setting the hearing on 

dispositive motions; 

WHEREAS, UNUM has not completed its reassessment of Plaintiff’s claim; 

WHEREAS, UNUM has not yet produced its records regarding Plaintiff’s claim file to 

counsel for LINA; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s and LINA’s counsel will need time to review UNUM’s records 

regarding Plaintiff’s UNUM claim to assess the merits of a possible claim against UNUM; 

WHEREAS, UNUM’s reassessment of its 2000 decision to terminate Plaintiff’s long-term 

disability benefits may make this entire lawsuit moot; and 

WHEREAS, if this matter is not stayed, LINA will be materially prejudiced because their 

counsel will not have sufficient time to analyze the merits of the action, join UNUM as a 

defendant, and asserts claims against UNUM. Moreover, if UNUM decides to reinstate 

Plaintiff’s benefits retroactive to the date it terminated them, this action might be moot; 

NOW THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND PURSUANT TO LOCAL 

RULE 7-12, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 

1. This matter shall be stayed for an additional 60 days; and 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-04172-SC Document 28 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING CASE (C 05-4172 SC) 

2. The Court shall set a date for hearing of cross motions for summary judgment in 

March 2007 or as soon thereafter as possible depending on the Court’s schedule. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

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

By /S/ Donald P. Sullivan 

Donald P. Sullivan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

URS CORPORATION SHORT & LONG 

TERM DISABILITY PLAN 

Dated: December 11, 2006 FRICKER & MELLON & ASSOCIATES 

By /S/ James G. Mellon (as authorized on 

December 11, 2006) 

Timothy J. Fricker 

James G. Mellon 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MARCO C. LOBASCIO 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that: 

1. This matter shall be stayed for 60 days and all pre-trial deadlines shall be vacated; 

2. The Court shall hear the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on 

______________, 2007; 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: The Hon. Samuel Conti 

 U.S. District Judge 

1-SF/7408097.1 

3/23 at 10:00 a.m. 12/13/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:05-cv-04172-SC Document 28 Filed 12/13/06 Page 4 of 4