Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455-12/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAMTA PATEL-PURI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-0455 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PARTIES

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING

NEW LAW

Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. In an order

dated August 9, 2006, the Court vacated the August 11, 2006 hearing on the motions.

Thereafter, on August 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc opinion, Abatie v. Alta

Health & Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2347660 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006), in which the Ninth Circuit

set forth new law with respect to the manner in which district courts review a plan

administrator’s denial of an application for ERISA benefits.

On August 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a three-page “Request to Apply New Law re:

Standard of Review,” in which plaintiff alerted the Court to the existence of the Abatie

decision, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). Plaintiffs’ request summarized the

Abatie decision, but did not contain argument as to how Abatie might apply to the instant

action. Thereafter, on August 22, 2006, defendants filed a three-page “response,” in

which they argued the applicability of Abatie to the instant litigation. On the following date,

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 71 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 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

2

August 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a four-page “reply,” in which she (1) argued that defendant

violated Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) by submitting argument as to the applicability of Abatie, and

(2) responded briefly to defendants’ argument.

As plaintiff notes, Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) authorizes the parties to “bring to the

Court’s attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply

was filed by serving and filing a Statement of Recent Decision, containing a citation to and

providing a copy of the new opinion – without argument.” See Civil L.R. 7-3(d). 

“Otherwise, once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed

without Court approval.” See id. Here, both parties violated Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

Plaintiff violated the Rule by summarizing the Abatie opinion instead of providing a copy of

it, and by filing a reply to defendants’ response without seeking prior approval from the

Court; defendants violated the Rule by submitting its response without seeking prior

approval from the Court.

Nonetheless, because Abatie is an important new opinion relating to the issues

presented in the instant action, the Court will consider the memoranda the parties have

filed. Moreover, because it is unclear whether the parties have had adequate time to

consider how Abatie may impact the resolution of the instant litigation, the Court will afford

the parties an additional opportunity to file supplemental briefs addressing Abatie.

Accordingly, no later than September 15, 2006, the parties may file supplemental

memoranda of no longer than ten pages in length addressing how Abatie applies to the

instant litigation. If either party is content to rely on the briefing already filed, that party

shall file a notice so stating.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 71 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2