Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01867/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01867-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RADFER TRUST,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-1867 PJH

v. ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND MOTION

FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE TO AMEND JUDGMENT

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion to amend the August 17, 2005, order of dismissal, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Holding No. 3 in the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss is amended to read as follows:

3. The fourth cause of action is dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Because the court finds, as stated at the hearing, that granting leave to amend

this claim would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend.

Defendant’s request to amend the order of dismissal to state that the dismissal of the

first cause of action is “with prejudice” is DENIED. Defendant argues that the order should be

amended to reflect the hearing on the motion to dismiss, where the court stated, referring to

the entire action, “I am dismissing this with prejudice.” Defendant also contends that dismissal

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is generally “dispositive,” citing three decisions

from the Northern District of California, two from Judge Fogel, and one from Judge Armstrong. 

Upon further consideration, the court finds that the dismissal of the first cause of action

should be without prejudice. The decisions cited by defendant are procedurally

distinguishable, as each involved a motion for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss for
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

failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Moreover, even had the court in the present action

granted summary judgment on all claims, the dismissal of the first cause of action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies would not necessarily constitute a ruling on the merits of the

claim. Under certain circumstances, such a ruling could be “limited to resolving the threshold

question of whether administrative remedies must be exhausted” before a plaintiff may bring

this claim in federal court. See D’Amico v. CBS Corp., 297 F.3d 287, 293-94 (3rd Cir. 2002). 

While it is not clear to the court whether exhaustion is still available, or whether any

further attempt by the plaintiff to pursue this matter with First UNUM would be time-barred, the

court is unwilling to foreclose plaintiff’s ability to exhaust by dismissing the first cause of action

with prejudice. Accordingly, the court finds that the dismissal shall be without prejudice to

plaintiff’s pursuing whatever rights the insured may have under the Plan.

Finally, plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment is GRANTED. The court will issue an

amended judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge