Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06609/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06609-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General American Life Insurance Company
Defendant
MetLife Group, Inc.
Defendant
Metlife, Inc.
Defendant
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Susan A. Pitt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

REVISED JOINT STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS IN 

RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

LINDA B. OLIVER (SBN 166720) 

loliver@maynardcooper.com

JANET CHOI (SBN 298809)

jchoi@maynardcooper.com

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP

600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 646-4700

Facsimile: (205) 254-1999

Attorney for Defendants

METLIFE, INC.

GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

METLIFE GROUP, INC.

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN A. PITT, Individually, as Successor-InInterest to Michael A. Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of 

the Estate of Michael A. Pitt, and on Behalf of the 

Class,

Plaintiff,

vs.

METLIFE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Missouri corporation; 

METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and 

METLIFE GROUP, INC., a New York 

Corporation

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:18-cv-06609 YSR

REVISED JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Administrative Motion for Additional 

Briefing Pages Filed Concurrently 

Herewith]

Pursuant to the Court’s February 27th Order re: Joint Stipulation at Docket Number 36 

(Dkt. No. 37), Plaintiff SUSAN A. PITT and Defendants METLIFE, INC., GENERAL 

AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURNACE 

COMPANY, and METLIFE GROUP, INC. hereby state:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

3/6/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06609-YGR Document 41 Filed 03/06/19 Page 1 of 5
2

JOINT STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) on February 11, 

2019. (Dkt. No. 32). The FAC is 47 pages long, 160 paragraphs, and contains claims for (1) 

Declaratory Relief or Judgment under California state law; (2) Declaratory Relief or Judgment 

under federal law; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Bad Faith; (5) Unfair Competition; and (6) Financial 

Elder Abuse. The FAC added factual allegations, a new legal theory (financial elder abuse), and a 

fourth Defendant: MetLife, Inc.

2. Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred extensively regarding the legal and 

factual issues presented by the FAC. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), the parties propose the 

following stipulated schedule for responding to the FAC:

a. The Defendants’ responsive pleadings will include Motions to Dismiss 

addressing various issues they believe are presented by the FAC. Defendants

will have until March 22, 2019, to file their motions to dismiss. 

b. Plaintiff will have until April 29, 2019, to file any Opposition[s];

c. Defendants will have until May 23, 2019, to file any Replies; 

d. The hearings on any Motions to Dismiss can be held on June 18, 2019 at 2 p.m.,

or any other date as the court may determine. 

3. Plaintiff and Defendants further agree that good cause exists for adopting the 

proposed briefing schedule because of the scope of issues that will be raised in the responsive 

pleadings and, consequently, the time and resources that both sides will need to fully research and 

brief those issues for the Court. Both Plaintiff’s and defense counsel are familiar with the issues 

presented by the FAC and anticipated responses, and have experience litigating similar legal issues 

(including against one another). 

4. More specifically, the Motions to Dismiss will address a number of issues referenced 

in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as other related issues, such as:

a. Personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). Some Defendants will argue that 

personal jurisdiction is lacking over them. Plaintiff will oppose.

b. Failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants will also argue that 

Case 4:18-cv-06609-YGR Document 41 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 5
3

JOINT STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiff has failed to state valid claims. In turn, this will require exploration of 

choice of law issues, proper interpretation of the California Insurance Code and 

then application of that Code to the life insurance policy in question here, the 

interpretation and availability of relief under California’s Business and 

Professions Code (e.g. whether Plaintiff has stated valid claims for restitution or 

injunctive relief). Separately, Defendants will challenge Plaintiff’s allegations 

that class treatment is appropriate here. Plaintiff will oppose. A further 

description of the issues from Defendants’ point of view, as we as additional 

facts supporting the proposed briefing schedule, are included in the 

accompanying Declaration of defense counsel Linda B. Oliver, Esq.

c. Venue. Defendants will further claim that the Northern District is not the proper 

venue for this action. Plaintiff will oppose.

5. The parties recognize and agree that the usual due-course time limits for fully 

briefing all of these issues for the court would be insufficient. 

6. Plaintiff and Defendants further agree that this case is still in its early stages—with 

no party having served formal discovery yet—and that no party is prejudiced by this proposed 

stipulated schedule. Furthermore, the requested time modification would have a minimal effect on 

the schedule for this case. 

FILER’S ATTESTATION-Local Rule 5.1(i)(3)

I, Linda B. Oliver, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being 

used to file this document. I hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has 

been obtained from each signatory hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

Case 4:18-cv-06609-YGR Document 41 Filed 03/06/19 Page 3 of 5
4

JOINT STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

DATED: March 1, 2019 MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP

/s/ Linda Oliver

 LINDA B. OLIVER

Attorney for Defendants MetLife, 

Inc., General American Life 

Insurance Company, Metropolitan 

Tower Life Insurance Company, and 

MetLife Group, Inc.

DATED: March 1, 2019 NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP

/s/ Craig M. Nicholas

 Craig M. Nicholas

CRAIG M. NICHOLAS (SBN 

178444)

cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org

ALEX TOMASEVIC (SBN 245598)

atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, 

LLP

225 Broadway, 19th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 325-0492

Facsimile: (619) 325-0496

Attorneys for Plaintiff Susan A. Pitt

Case 4:18-cv-06609-YGR Document 41 Filed 03/06/19 Page 4 of 5
5

JOINT STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

DATED: March 1, 2019 WINTERS & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Jack B. Winters, Jr.

 JACK B. WINTERS, JR. (SBN 

82998)

jackbwinters@earthlink.com

GEORG M. CAPIELO (SBN 

245491)

gcapielo@einsurelaw.com

SARAH BALL (SBN 292337)

sball@einsurelaw.com

WINTERS & ASSOCIATES

8489 La Mesa Boulevard

La Mesa, CA 91942

Telephone: (619) 234-9000

Facsimile: (619) 750-0413

Attorneys for Plaintiff SUSAN A. 

PITT

Case 4:18-cv-06609-YGR Document 41 Filed 03/06/19 Page 5 of 5