Amitrano v. UnitedHealth Group

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Lorrie Amitrano, No. CV-23-00144-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 UnitedHealth Group,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On July 17, 2024, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff Amitrano’s Motions 16 to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 81) and Reopen the Case (Doc. 82), and 17 granting Defendant UnitedHealth Group’s Cross-Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 18 and Compel (Doc. 84). The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide Defendant with a W-4 19 containing her social security number in order to facilitate payment of the agreed upon 20 settlement amount. (Doc. 91.) On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document entitled 21 “Plaintiff Amitrano’s Objection to July 17th, 2024 Orders with Request for Full Rationale 22 by U.S. District Court, Arizona District Judge Zipps.” (Doc. 92.) On August 1, 2024, 23 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen and Reinstatement with a Hearing to Enforce Plaintiff's 24 Demand for Settlement Payment From Defendant's Breach of March 27th, 2024 Settlement 25 Agreement. (Doc. 93.) Because the Court has already addressed the arguments raised by 26 Plaintiff, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s filings (Docs. 92 & 93) as a Motion to 27 Reconsider. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to 28 Reconsider. 1 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 2 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A mere 3 disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong 4 v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). “The Court will ordinarily 5 deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a 6 showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention 7 earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 8 Plaintiff does not present new facts or legal authority warranting reconsideration of 9 the Court’s previous Order. Instead, Plaintiff reurges the same argument that “[she] is not 10 required to provide her social security number” to Defendant because she “is not an UHG 11 employee, not a UHG worker, not hired in December 2021, did not have an employment 12 agreement with UnitedHealth Group, has not performed services for wages.” (Doc. 92.) 13 Plaintiff’s current or past employment status with the Defendant is irrelevant. As 14 memorialized in the settlement agreement, Plaintiff agreed to receive “one payment for 15 alleged lost back pay and/or front pay by check in the amount of [], less applicable 16 payroll/tax withholdings, for which UnitedHealth shall issue an IRS form W-2 to 17 Amitrano.” (Doc. 81-14 at 2.) Plaintiff agreed to provide Defendant with a completed W- 18 4 to facilitate payment of the settlement amount. (See Doc. 81-14 at 2 (“The settlement 19 payments… will be sent within thirty (30) days after… counsel for United Health Group 20 receives a copy of … executed W-4 and W-9 forms from Amitrano.”).) Plaintiff’s social 21 security number is required for Defendant to “comply with its obligation to withhold social 22 security and Medicare taxes from wages and pay the company’s share of these taxes” and 23 avoid penalty. (Doc. 91 at 2.) Plaintiff presents no new arguments that warrant 24 reconsideration of the Court’s July 17, 2024 Order. To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees 25 with this Court’s conclusion, she may seek relief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 26 Plaintiff also demands “immediate payment of half of the settlement payment not 27 in dispute.” (Doc. 93 at 2.) The settlement agreement is not severable. Defendant is not 28 required to fulfill its obligation to pay Plaintiff any money unless and until Plaintiff provides the information that she agreed to provide to Defendant. The settlement 2|| agreement is binding on the parties regardless of whether Plaintiff provides the || information, however, Plaintiff is not entitled to receive any payment pursuant to the || settlement agreement unless and until she provides the completed W-4. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiff's Objection to 7/17/24 Orders with Request for Full Rationale by U.S. 7 District Court, Arizona District Judge Zipps (Doc. 92) is denied. 8 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen and Reinstatement with a Hearing to Enforce 9 Plaintiff's Demand for Settlement Payment From Defendant's Breach of March 10 27th, 2024 Settlement Agreement (Doc. 93) is denied. 11 Dated this 14th day of August, 2024. 12 13 14 i, Jennifer G. 71 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-