Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00714/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00714-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance 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

1 In the first amended complaint, plaintiff omitted those

claims involving his wife and it appears she is no longer a party

to the instant action.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED GONZALES,1

NO. CIV. S-05-714 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE; LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA; CIGNA CORPORATION;

and CIGNA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing on this case is scheduled for August 15, 2005, 

at 10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court

pursuant to Life Insurance Company of North America’s (“defendant”)

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00714-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 08/09/05 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

2 Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury

trial. Defendant also moves to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause

of action. 

3 The proper course would have been for defendant to withdraw

the motion to dismiss and await authorization. Again, it appears

to the court that the defendant would pointlessly involve the court

than to proceed practically. Defendant previously filed a motion

to dismiss and a motion to strike containing the same allegations

and arguments which was scheduled for July 18, 2005 on the court’s

Law and Motion Calendar. On July 1, 2005, the parties filed a

stipulation with the court whereby the parties agreed that in lieu

of the plaintiff filing opposition briefs to the motions,

plaintiff would file a first amended complaint on or before July

8, 2005. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 6,

2005. Consequently, the court issued and order deeming defendant’s

motions withdrawn. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,

unfortunately, did not cure the deficiencies defendant complains

of, thus requiring defendant to re-file its motions and this

court expending its limited resources on this matter. To put it

directly, the court is not happy with the conduct of either party.

2

motions to strike and dismiss.2

Plaintiff, Alfred E. Gonzales, has filed a statement of nonopposition to defendant’s motion to strike. In addition, plaintiff

explains in his “opposition” brief to defendant’s motion to dismiss

that he attempted to amend his complaint to remove the second cause

of action and faxed a stipulation and copy of the proposed second

amended complaint to defendant’s counsel. Opp’n at 2. Defendant’s

counsel, however, advised plaintiff that she could not receive

authorization to sign the stipulation in time, and to file the

second amended complaint - and, apparently, to leave the matter on

the court’s law and motion calendar.3 Id. The court has examined

plaintiff’s “opposition” brief and the attached proposed second

amended complaint indeed removes the second cause of action and

cures any deficiencies defendant complains of in its motion to

Case 2:05-cv-00714-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 08/09/05 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

3

dismiss. 

Accordingly, the court makes the following ORDERS:

1. The hearing on the motions to strike and dismiss

presently before the court is VACATED.

2. Defendant’s motions to strike and dismiss are GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s jury demand is STRICKEN.

4. Plaintiff is directed to FILE his Second Amended

Complaint within ten (10) days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 9, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00714-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 3