Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592-14/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.

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ENIKO PRAKASH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PULSENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEE LONG

TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant. 

SUN LIFE FINANCIAL and SUN LIFE

ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,

Real Parties in Interest. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-7592 SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Counterclaim-defendants Eniko Prakash and Adityo Prakash

(collectively "Prakashes") move for summary judgment on four

counterclaims brought by Real Party in Interest Sun Life Assurance

of Canada ("Sun Life"). See Docket No. 31. Sun Life opposed the

Motion, and the Prakashes replied. Docket Nos. 48, 56. Having

reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that there

are genuine disputes regarding material facts, and therefore

DENIES the Prakashes' Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

The Prakashes were founders of Pulsent Corp. and participants

in the Pulsent Corp. Employee Long Term Disability Plan ("the

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 137 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plan"), the named Defendant here. The Plan, which is now defunct,

was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.(“ERISA”). Sun Life issued an

insurance policy that funded all benefits under the plan, made all

claims determinations under the plan, and now stands in place of

the Plan in this suit.

In July 2002, Eniko Prakash underwent knee surgery. 

Following that surgery, she claimed permanent disability and

represented that she was unable to work. Sun Life paid Mrs.

Prakash long term disability benefits from September 11, 2002

until March 9, 2005. At that time, Sun Life determined that Mrs.

Prakash was able to work in certain conditions, and therefore

terminated her benefits. Mrs. Prakash brought this suit in

December 2006, seeking review of Sun Life's decision to terminate

her benefits.

Sun Life brought counterclaims against Mrs. Prakash for

intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and negligent

misrepresentation, as well as a claim against both Mr. and Mrs.

Prakash for conspiracy to commit fraud. Generally, Sun Life

alleges that Mrs. Prakash misrepresented the extent of her

disability and whether or not she was able to work, and that she

did in fact take on alternate employment while still claiming that

she was completely disabled.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Entry of summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the

discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 137 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Summary judgment should be granted where the

evidence is such that it would require a directed verdict for the

moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250

(1986). Thus, "Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment

. . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to

establish the existence of an element essential to that party's

case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In

addition, entry of summary judgment in a party's favor is

appropriate when there are no material issues of fact as to the

essential elements of the party's claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at

247-49.

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that there are a number of genuine disputes

regarding material facts and that summary judgment is therefore

inappropriate. The parties have presented a number of conflicting 

medical reports detailing Mrs. Prakash's various ailments from

2002 to the present. In order to evaluate these reports and the

testimony of the physicians who provided them, it will be

necessary for the fact-finder at trial to make determinations on

the credibility of each physician, which the Court cannot do at

this stage. See Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep't, 424 F.3d

1027, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2005). For example, the Prakashes

explicitly challenge the credibility and objectivity of Dr.

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 137 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

William Hall, one of Sun Life's consultants. See Reply at 9-10.

The Prakashes argue that the Court cannot review the

documentary evidence submitted by Sun Life because the Court is

limited to consideration of "the pleadings, the discovery and

disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits." Reply at 3

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Contrary to the Prakashes'

reading, the list of materials in Rule 56(c) which may form the

basis of the Court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment is

not an exhaustive list. See, e.g., Duffee ex rel Thornton v.

Murray Ohio Mfg., 160 F.R.D. 602 (D. Kan. 1995). 

The Prakashes further object that much of the evidence Sun

Life submits is inadmissible hearsay. However, sustaining the

objection would not affect the Court's ruling. The Prakashes also

cite to Sun Life's exhibits repeatedly. If the Court excluded

that evidence, the Prakashes would be left with only their own

testimony and that of Dr. Dye, which would not be sufficient to

meet their burden for summary judgment. Dr. Dye only treated Mrs.

Prakash for knee problems. He did not treat her for sleep

trouble, Lyme disease, chronic fatigue, mononucleosis, or any of

the other numerous health problems she described to Sun Life. 

See, e.g., Padway Decl. Ex. 1, Dye Depo., at 46-47, 92, 100-01. 

Further, Dr. Dye could not know what representations Mrs. Prakash

made to Sun Life, whether she lied or omitted material details,

and what her intent was if she did so. As such, on the bulk of

the issues underlying Sun Life's counterclaim, the only evidence

the Prakashes have is their own testimony. Nothing in the record

indicates that either of the Prakashes is a doctor qualified to

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 137 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

testify about Mrs. Prakash's health problems or the extent of her

disability. Thus, even if the Court accepts the Prakashes'

testimony relating to all of the issues about which they are

qualified to testify, and considers no other evidence, there

remain factual disputes which will be best resolved by the factfinder at trial. 

Finally, the Court notes that the Prakashes brought this

motion well before the close of discovery and that, even with

trial approaching, the parties are still conducting discovery and

bringing new discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. 

Under such circumstances, where Sun Life has not yet had the

opportunity to fully develop its case, it is appropriate and

within the Court's power to deny the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f)(1). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the

Prakashes' Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 137 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 5