Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02134/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02134-0/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

1 Because Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has already been filed with this Court, see Doc.

No. 39, this Court construes Plaintiff’s request to “reject for filing Defendant Reliastar’s motion” as a request

to strike Reliastar’s motion for summary judgment.

05cv2134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM V. RONAN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR

ANESTHESIA SERVICE MEDICAL

GROUP, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV2134 JAH (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT FILING AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE

[Doc. No. 56]

On August 29, 2006, Plaintiff William V. Ronan (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte

application to file an objection to Defendant Reliastar Life Insurance Co.’s (“Reliastar”) filing

of its motion for summary judgment, scheduled for oral argument before this Court on October

5, 2006. Doc. No. 56. In his objection, Plaintiff asks this Court to strike1

 the filing of

Defendant Reliastar’s motion for summary judgment because it is: 1) an untimely cross-motion;

2) is duplicative of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; 3) amounts to an impermissible

surreply; 4) amounts to a “pre-decision motion for reconsideration of the issue”; and 5) does

not comply with Magistrate Judge McCurine’s previously set pretrial motion hearing dates.

Reliastar filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application on August 31, 2006.

After a thorough review of the relevant documents filed in this matter, this Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file his objection, and DENIES Plaintiff’s request

Case 3:05-cv-02134-JAH-WMC Document 57 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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 05cv2134

to reject the filing of Defendant Reliastar’s motion for summary judgment. First, there is no

evidence to support Plaintiff’s contention that Reliastar’s motion is untimely or violates

Magistrate Judge McCurine’s scheduling order. As set by Magistrate Judge McCurine, the

deadline for deciding the proper standard of review in the instant matter is October 31, 2006.

See Doc. No. 30 at ¶ 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for oral

argument before this Court on October 5, 2006. Accordingly, Reliastar’s motion is not

untimely.

Plaintiff’s argument regarding the duplicative nature of Reliastar’s motion or that

Reliastar’s motion is an impermissible surreply is also unpersuasive. Plaintiff does not argue

that cross motions for summary judgment or surreplies are procedurally improper in the instant

matter. Instead, Plaintiff’s arguments appear to target the merits of Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, which is not appropriate for consideration on an ex parte application.

Plaintiff’s arguments, therefore, lack merit. Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that Reliastar’s motion

should have been filed as a motion for reconsideration likewise is unpersuasive. As the Federal

Rules recognize, a motion for reconsideration requires this Court to apply a more stringent

standard of review. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Thus, if Defendant were instead limited to

filing a motion for reconsideration, this Court could only consider Defendant’s motion if the

Court’s order were based on: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence...; (3) fraud..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse

party; ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b). Such a requirement would prejudice Defendant where filing of a cross motion

for summary judgment was otherwise proper. This Court, therefore, declines to adopt Plaintiff’s

assertions, and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-02134-JAH-WMC Document 57 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 05cv2134

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file its objections to Defendant’s filing of its

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed

to file the attached documents forthwith.

2) Plaintiff’s request to strike the filing of Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2006

Hon. John A. Houston, U.S. District Judge

United States District Court

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurine All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-02134-JAH-WMC Document 57 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3