Hints v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, No. 4:2019cv03764 - Document 32 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT ; ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/27/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hints v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 1 2 3 4 Doc. 32 Richard Johnston – SBN 124524 131A Stony Circle, Suite 500 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Telephone (707) 939-5299 Richard.Johnston@Johnston-Law-Office.com Attorney for Plaintiff Ralph F. Hints 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH F. HINTS, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF COLUMBUS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: 4:19-cv-03764-YGR ORDER GRANTING STUPILATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2)]; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 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 26 27 28 2. On May 15, 2020, the Court granted judgment on the pleadings in AFLAC’s favor as to the first claim for relief. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (May 15 Order) (May 15, 2020) (ECF no. 26). In so 1 Stipulated Request for Entry of Judgment, [Proposed] Judgment—Case no. 4:19-cv-03764YGR Dockets.Justia.com 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. Under current Ninth Circuit law, an estoppel claim under § 1132(a)(3) requires as an 3 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). 4. Based on the Court’s finding of non-ambiguity in connection with the May 15 Order, Hints 7 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. 5. Hints wishes to seek appellate review of the Court’s ruling that the insurance policy in 14 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. 28 2 Stipulated Request for Entry of Judgment, [Proposed] Judgment—Case no. 4:19-cv-03764YGR 1 2 Respectfully submitted on behalf of the parties by the undersigned counsel. DATED: July 23, 2020 3 4 5 6 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 7 8 9 10 DATED: July 23, 2020 11 12 Johnston Law Office By: /s/ Richard Johnston Richard Johnston Attorney for Plaintiff Ralph F. Hints 13 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 14 15 The Court, having considered the parties’ request for entry of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 41(a)(2), and having conducted due deliberation and analysis, certifies that it has meaningfully 17 participated in the process of securing entry of a final and appealable judgment, and approves the 18 parties’ request. 19 Now, therefore, the Court orders that plaintiff Ralph F. Hints recover nothing as against 20 defendant American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, that the entire action be 21 dismissed on the merits, and that final judgment to that effect be, and is hereby, entered. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 July 27 2020 Dated: _____________, 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Stipulated Request for Entry of Judgment, [Proposed] Judgment—Case no. 4:19-cv-03764YGR
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
