Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 2, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-01553·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-NODJ-CDB COMPANY., 12 SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) Plaintiff, 13 Discovery Deadlines: v. - Rule 26 Disclosures: February 2, 2024 14 - Amended Pleadings: April 2, 2024 CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA, et al., - Expert Disclosures: August 15, 2024 15 - Rebuttal Disclosures: August 29, 2024 Defendants. - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: August 1, 2024 16 - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 28, 2024 17 - 2M 0i 2d 4- ,D ai ts 9co :3v 0e r ay . mS .t ,a t iu ns B C ao kn erf se fr ie en lc de F: eJ du en re a l2 0, CONCEPCTION FLORES MOLINA, Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301 Cross Plaintiff, 19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: v. - Filing: October 14, 2024 20 - Hearing: On November 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., LUPE C. NUNES a/k/a LUPE FLORES, Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Cross Defendant. Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: December 9, 2024

- Hearing: January 13, 2025, 1:30 p.m,, in Robert 23 E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 5, 7th Floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: February 24, 2025, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

26 Trial: April 21, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 27

28 1 Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) initiated this action by filing 2 an interpleader complaint on November 2, 2023. (Doc. 1). MetLife is the claims administrator for 3 Vincent R. Flores (“the Decedent”), a life insurance beneficiary who had benefits under the 4 operative life insurance plan in the amount of $118,500. The Decedent died on June 4, 2023, and 5 his plan benefits became payable. However, there is a dispute in the way the plan benefits should 6 be disbursed. The most recent beneficiary designation allocates disbursement of 100% of the plan 7 benefits to Lupe Flores (“Lupe”), the Decedent’s daughter. Concepcion Flores Molina (“Molina”) 8 is also the Decedent’s daughter and Lupe’s sister. 9 Concurrent with the filing of her answer, Molina filed a crossclaim against Lupe on 10 January 8, 2024. Molina claims that the Decedent’s designation of Lupe as the sole recipient for 11 benefits under the plan was the result of Lupe’s exercise of undue influence on him. Molina seeks 12 a declaration from the Court deeming Lupe as having predeceased the Decedent as provided under 13 California Probate Code section 295. 14 The Court held a scheduling conference on February 1, 2024. Misty Murray and Karen 15 Tsui appeared on behalf of MetLife; Eric Leroy appeared on behalf of Molina. Lupe Flores, who is 16 proceeding pro se in this matter, also appeared. 17 During the scheduling conference, Lupe was advised that she currently is in default of her 18 obligation to answer the Molina’s crossclaim (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B)) and the 19 consequences of potentially sustaining a default in this action. 20 I. Magistrate Judge Consent: 21 As of the date of entry of this scheduling order, the parties are delinquent in their obligation to 22 complete and file consent/decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction forms. See Doc. 4. The 23 parties are DIRECTED to file the required forms within five days of entry of this Order. 24 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 25 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 26 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 27 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 28 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 1 Further, as of the date of entry of this scheduling order, this matter is assigned to “No District 2 Court Judge (NODJ)” until a new district judge is appointed.1 3 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 4 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 5 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 6 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 7 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 8 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 9 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 10 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 11 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 12 Magistrate Judge. 13 II. Pleading Amendment 14 Any motions to amend the pleadings or substitute “Doe” defendants must be filed by April 2, 15 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the 16 propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All 17 proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 18 amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 19 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 20 amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 21 bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 22 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 23 Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be exchanged by no later than 24 February 2, 2024. 25 26

27 1 Contact information for the NODJ chambers and courtroom deputy can be found at 28 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-district-judge- nodj/. Proposed orders for a District Judge in this case should be sent to 1 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before August 2 1, 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before September 28, 2024. 3 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before August 15, 4 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before August 29, 2024. The written designation of 5 retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and 6 (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance 7 with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such 8 experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 9 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 10 and their opinions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)