Hints v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus

Opinion

1 Richard Johnston – SBN 124524 131A Stony Circle, Suite 500 2 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Telephone (707) 939-5299 3 Richard.Johnston@Johnston-Law-Office.com 4 Attorney for Plaintiff Ralph F. Hints 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RALPH F. HINTS, ) Case Number: 4:19-cv-03764-YGR ) ORDER GRANTING 11 Plaintiff, ) STUPILATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ) JUDGMENT [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2)]; [PROPOSED] 12 ) JUDGMENT vs. ) 13 ) AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE ) 14 COMPANY OF COLUMBUS, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) ) 18 19 Plaintiff Ralph F. Hints states the following: 20 1.Hints’ complaint (June 27, 2019) (ECF no. 1) includes two claims for relief. The first claim 21 seeks a judicial declaration of rights to future benefits under a disability insurance policy issued by 22 defendant American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus (AFLAC), invoking 29 USC 23 §1132(a)(1)(B). The second claim seeks equitable relief against AFLAC under a theory of estoppel, 24 based on representations by AFLAC personnel, invoking 29 USC § 1132(a)(3). 25 2.On May 15, 2020, the Court granted judgment on the pleadings in AFLAC’s favor as to the 26 first claim for relief. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings and Granting 27 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (May 15 Order) (May 15, 2020) (ECF no. 26). In so 1 doing, the Court determined that “the policy—with respect to Hints’ situation—is unambiguous, and 2 thus, concludes that AFLAC’s motion is well-taken.” Id. at 7:4–5. 3 3. Under current Ninth Circuit law, an estoppel claim under § 1132(a)(3) requires as an 4 essential element that “the provisions of the plan at issue were ambiguous such that reasonable 5 persons could disagree as to their meaning or effect.” Gabriel v. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund, 773 F.3d 6 945, 957 (9th Cir. 2014). 7 4. Based on the Court’s finding of non-ambiguity in connection with the May 15 Order, Hints 8 therefore concedes that the second claim for relief for estoppel under § 1132(a)(3) cannot succeed 9 and is without merit under Ninth Circuit law. Hints therefore specifically stipulates that the second 10 claim for relief may be further asserted following an eventual Ninth Circuit mandate if and only if, 11 in addition to all other applicable substantive and procedural prerequisites, this Court’s ruling that 12 the insurance policy in question is unambiguous is reversed or otherwise vacated by the Ninth 13 Circuit. 14 5. Hints wishes to seek appellate review of the Court’s ruling that the insurance policy in 15 question is unambiguous, and, in order to promote efficiency and facilitate appellate review, wishes 16 to promptly secure a final and appealable order disposing of the action as a whole. Appellate 17 jurisdiction, however, depends on a showing that the judgment is the product not merely of a 18 stipulation but of the “approval and meaningful participation of the district court.” Galaza v. Wolf, 19 954 F.3d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir. 2020). 20 Stipulation 21 6. On July 20, 2020, the Court advised the parties via email from chambers that it is “willing 22 to enter a stipulated dismissal under Rule 41.” Therefore the parties submit the stipulation below, 23 respectfully inviting the Court’s critical consideration of the posited basis for entering judgment at 24 this time and the Court’s meaningful participation in the associated processes. 25 7. In view of the foregoing, the parties therefore jointly request that the Court, after due 26 deliberation and analysis, enter final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) in the form proposed 27 below. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the parties by the undersigned counsel.

DATED: July 23, 2020 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. By: /s/ Sean P. Nalty SEAN P. NALTY Attorneys for Defendant American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus

h ff DATED: July 23, 2020 Johnston Law Oltice By: /s/ Richard Johnston Richard Johnston Attorney for Plaintiff Ralph F. Hints

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT The Court, having considered the parties’ request for entry of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), and having conducted due deliberation and analysis, certifies that it has meaningfully participated in the process of securing entry of a final and appealable judgment, and approves the parties’ request. Now, therefore, the Court orders that plaintiff Ralph F. Hints recover nothing as against defendant American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, that the entire action be dismissed on the merits, and that final judgment to that effect be, and is hereby, entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:____ July 27_, 2020

Larne Hg nbrbeen — Y NE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shnulated Request for Entry of uidqment. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ no. 4:10-72)-02764-