On November 21, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jue Dds, Bonnie,
and
Lara, Ricardo,
for WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Los ANGELES
nae] Rortaccw (Mb 265 V
ran rc ‘a bass. lA = EAL: E ED
Burke, IKans+ Soereed, LeP Nov 21 2019
apt oe ae hgh 2 cage
osPralts, CA 41 ECT
iy ns) 03) soe am (HD
laats Unum bo
A uinbys iy Dekada of Anaic4 #
¢ Usain
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CPF-19-516948
BONNIE JUE, D.D.S., Case No. CGC-19-578426—
Plaintiff, [ |] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER
v. PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE AGAINST RICARDO LARA
UNUM GROUP; UNUM LIFE AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA;
RIC \O LARA AS COMMISSIONER Date: November 22, 2019
OFI |CE; and DOES 1-20, Time: 9:30 a.m.
inclusive,, Dept: 302
Defendants. Reservation No.: 010071122-12
Action Filed: August 15, 2019
Upon consideration of the Motion to Sever by Defendants Unum Group and Unum Life
Insurance Company of America (“Insurance Defendants”), including the Joinder in the Motion to
Sever filed by Defendant Ricardo Lara as Commissioner of Insurance, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Sever is GRANTED. The Court severs the
cause of action for writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance
and directs the Clerk of the Court to assign a new case number to that claim. There is no basis for
mandatory joinder of the writ of mandamus claim against the Commissioner and the breach of
contract and bad faith claims against the insurers. Compulsory joinder is required where "if (1) in
his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties?" (Code Civ. Proc.,
LA #4841-6986-0781 v1 a he
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVERoOo ON HD uw FP W N
Boe Be ee ee He
ot DW BB WN HO
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
‘SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Los ANCELES
” Cc, .
§ 389(a).) Here, Plaintiff does not convincingly demonstrate that the claims need to. be litigated
together to afford complete relief. Plaintiff posits that if benefits are reinstated after litigation of
the breach of contract claim, then the insurer might continue to rely on its illegal definition of
"total disability" and therefore, reformation/revocation of the policy by the Commission would be
necessary. This scenario is totally speculative. Insurance Code, § 10390 provides that a policy
must be construed in accordance with California law. If the Court were to rule in favor of
Plaintiff on her breach of contract claim, then it would likely find Plaintiff's definition of total
disability to be correct. It is dubious that the insurer would subsequently ignore that ruling and
then continue to rely on its improper definition. Plaintiff's conjecture is not a basis for joinder.
claims Plaintiff also fails to meet the permissive joinder requirements. As cogently explained in
the Court's July 31, 2017 order granting severance in Siefe v. Unum Group (CGC-17-556478), the
writ and contract claims do not arise out of the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences," (Code Civ. Proc., § 379(a); see David v. Medtronic, Inc. (2015) 237
Cal.App.4th 734, 741; Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826, 833.) The writ claim arises
from the Commissioner's approval of the disability policy in 1994 or earlier, and the
Commissioner's alleged failure to monitor the insurer in compliance with the California
Settlement Agreement ("CSA") that was executed in 2004. The contract claims arose in 2018
when the insurer terminated Plaintiff's benefits. There is little to no temporal or factual nexus
between the claims. At any rate, even if there were a basis for permissive joinder because the
alleged violations of the CSA are ongoing, the Court exercises its discretion per Code of Civ.
Proc. § 379.5 and severs the claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
pews flau. 20, 2a Bf a (eh
. THE SUPERIOR COURT
: ETHAN P. SCHULMAN
LA #4841-6986-0781 v1 : -2-
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER
Document Filed Date
November 21, 2019
Case Filing Date
November 21, 2019
Category
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES nae] Rortaccw (Mb 265 V ran rc ‘a bass. lA = EAL: E ED Burke, IKans+ Soereed, LeP Nov 21 2019 apt oe ae hgh 2 cage osPralts, CA 41 ECT iy ns) 03) soe am (HD laats Unum bo A uinbys iy Dekada of Anaic4 # ¢ Usain SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CPF-19-516948 BONNIE JUE, D.D.S., Case No. CGC-19-578426— Plaintiff, [ |] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER v. PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AGAINST RICARDO LARA UNUM GROUP; UNUM LIFE AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; RIC \O LARA AS COMMISSIONER Date: November 22, 2019 OFI |CE; and DOES 1-20, Time: 9:30 a.m. inclusive,, Dept: 302 Defendants. Reservation No.: 010071122-12 Action Filed: August 15, 2019 Upon consideration of the Motion to Sever by Defendants Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Insurance Defendants”), including the Joinder in the Motion to Sever filed by Defendant Ricardo Lara as Commissioner of Insurance, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Sever is GRANTED. The Court severs the cause of action for writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance and directs the Clerk of the Court to assign a new case number to that claim. There is no basis for mandatory joinder of the writ of mandamus claim against the Commissioner and the breach of contract and bad faith claims against the insurers. Compulsory joinder is required where "if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties?" (Code Civ. Proc., LA #4841-6986-0781 v1 a he ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVERoOo ON HD uw FP W N Boe Be ee ee He ot DW BB WN HO 28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & ‘SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law Los ANCELES ” Cc, . § 389(a).) Here, Plaintiff does not convincingly demonstrate that the claims need to. be litigated together to afford complete relief. Plaintiff posits that if benefits are reinstated after litigation of the breach of contract claim, then the insurer might continue to rely on its illegal definition of "total disability" and therefore, reformation/revocation of the policy by the Commission would be necessary. This scenario is totally speculative. Insurance Code, § 10390 provides that a policy must be construed in accordance with California law. If the Court were to rule in favor of Plaintiff on her breach of contract claim, then it would likely find Plaintiff's definition of total disability to be correct. It is dubious that the insurer would subsequently ignore that ruling and then continue to rely on its improper definition. Plaintiff's conjecture is not a basis for joinder. claims Plaintiff also fails to meet the permissive joinder requirements. As cogently explained in the Court's July 31, 2017 order granting severance in Siefe v. Unum Group (CGC-17-556478), the writ and contract claims do not arise out of the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," (Code Civ. Proc., § 379(a); see David v. Medtronic, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 734, 741; Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826, 833.) The writ claim arises from the Commissioner's approval of the disability policy in 1994 or earlier, and the Commissioner's alleged failure to monitor the insurer in compliance with the California Settlement Agreement ("CSA") that was executed in 2004. The contract claims arose in 2018 when the insurer terminated Plaintiff's benefits. There is little to no temporal or factual nexus between the claims. At any rate, even if there were a basis for permissive joinder because the alleged violations of the CSA are ongoing, the Court exercises its discretion per Code of Civ. Proc. § 379.5 and severs the claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. pews flau. 20, 2a Bf a (eh . THE SUPERIOR COURT : ETHAN P. SCHULMAN LA #4841-6986-0781 v1 : -2- ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER