Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06006/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HEGARTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06006-MMC 

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed December 6, 

2019, and noticed for hearing on February 7, 2020. Also before the Court is defendant's 

Motion to Dismiss, filed December 20, 2019, and noticed for hearing on March 27, 2020.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, in 1989, he purchased from defendants' 

predecessor a "direct recognition life [ ] vanishing premium insurance contract" (see

Compl. ¶ 1) and that said contract "contained a material feature commonly called a 

'persistency bonus,'" which feature provides for a "specified addition to the cash value of 

the insurance contract if the insurance contract is kept in force for a specified period or 

periods of time" (see Compl. ¶ 3). Plaintiff further alleges defendant, in 2016, advised 

him it "would not pay the 30 and 40-year bonuses" (see Compl. ¶ 58), and did not "credit 

[plaintiff's] 30-year persistency bonus . . . when it was due in August 2019" (see Compl.

¶ 78), which failure, plaintiff asserts, constitutes an "express breach" of the contract (see

Compl. ¶ 80). In his motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff seeks an order enjoining 

defendant "from terminating coverage under [the subject contract] and from requiring 

payment of additional premiums to keep [his] [i]nsurance [c]ontract in full force and effect 

Case 3:19-cv-06006-MMC Document 34 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

until a final adjudication of this action." (See Pl.'s Proposed Order at 2:11-15.)

In support of its opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, 

defendant submits evidence that it has "plac[ed] [plaintiff's] policy 'on suspense'" (see

Marmalefsky Decl. Ex. B), meaning the policy "will not lapse" even though plaintiff does 

not pay "monthly risk charges" (see id. Ex. A), and, further, that the policy will remain on 

suspense "for no fewer than 60 days" from the date defendant's motion to dismiss is 

resolved (see id. Ex. B). In light of such change in circumstances, defendant, in its 

opposition, requests the Court defer hearing on plaintiff's motion until its motion to 

dismiss has been resolved. In his reply, plaintiff contends such "deferral offers no 

efficiencies" (see Pl.'s Reply at 4:9) and requests his motion be heard first.

The Court, having considered the parties' respective written submissions, finds it 

appropriate to first rule on the motion to dismiss, given there is no imminent threat of the 

policy's lapsing and because resolution of the motion to dismiss will likely bear on, if not 

resolve, the issue of whether plaintiff, in support of the requested injunction, can show a 

likelihood of success on the merits.1

Accordingly, the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby 

VACATED, and, if appropriate, said motion will be reset to be heard on a date shortly 

after defendant's motion to dismiss is resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

1

In its motion to dismiss, defendant argues the subject contract does not require 

payment of persistency bonuses, and, in the alternative, that plaintiff's claims for such 

bonuses were released in 2000 by a court-approved class action settlement.

Case 3:19-cv-06006-MMC Document 34 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2