From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashraf v. Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
Case No. C11-03584 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C11-03584 SI

11-15-2011

Mohammad Ashraf, Plaintiff, v. Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan; Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendants, and Loral Space Insurance and Health Benefits Plan, Nominal Defendant

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Ashraf WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Life Insurance Company of North America, Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan, and for CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York


ADRIENNE C. PUBLICOVER (SBN: 161432)

LAURA E. FANNON (SBN: 111500)

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

Attorneys for Defendants LORAL SPACE

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA, and for CIGNA

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NEW YORK

MICHELLE L. ROBERTS (SBN: 239092)

CASSIE SPRINGER-SULLIVAN (SBN:

221506)

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS

LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER SUBSTITUTING PARTY

Hon. Susan Illston

Plaintiff Mohammad Ashraf, Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America ("LINA"), and CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York ("CLICNY") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") through their respective counsel stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the above-entitled action naming the LINA as a Defendant and alleging that the Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan ("the Plan") was funded by a group insurance policy with LINA. Dkt. No. 1;

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2011, LINA and the Plan answered Plaintiff's Complaint and admitted Plaintiff's allegations with respect to LINA. Dkt. No. 10;

WHEREAS, upon further investigation by the Parties, they discovered that the Plan was funded by a group insurance policy with CLICNY rather than LINA, and that Plaintiff named the insurance company defendant in error;

WHEREAS, CLICNY and LINA are insurance company subsidiaries of CIGNA Corporation;

WHEREAS, both Parties stipulate and agree that CLICNY should be substituted as a party in this action in place of LINA;

WHEREAS, CLICNY hereby acknowledges actual notice of this suit and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of this court in this action.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

1. Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America shall be dismissed from this action without prejudice.
2. CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York is substituted as a Defendant in place of LINA and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of this court in this action.

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ashraf

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

Attorneys for Defendants Life Insurance Company

of North America, Loral Space Long Term

Disability Plan, and for CIGNA Life Insurance

Company of New York

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

1. Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America is hereby dismissed from this action without prejudice; and
2. CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York is substituted as a party in this action in place of Life Insurance Company of North America.

Hon. Susan Illston

U.S. District Court Judge

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I, Michelle, L. Roberts, hereby attest that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of the document from the other signatures on this document.

Michelle L. Roberts


Summaries of

Ashraf v. Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
Case No. C11-03584 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Ashraf v. Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan

Case Details

Full title:Mohammad Ashraf, Plaintiff, v. Loral Space Long Term Disability Plan; Life…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

Case No. C11-03584 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)