Adams v. Symetra Life Insurance Company ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Luke Adams, No. CV-18-00378-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Symetra Life Insurance Company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company’s Motion 16 for Clarification. (Doc. 373.) Symetra seeks clarification on footnote two of the Court’s 17 September 19, 2022 Order: “To the extent that Symetra presented a new legal theory at 18 Oral Argument, the Court declines to consider it, and limits its analysis to the issue raised 19 in the pending motion.” (Doc. 372 at 5 n.2). Symetra asks that the Court clarify whether 20 this footnote indicates that Symetra waived its argument that TAA and MGC group fall 21 under ERISA’s definition of employer because they purportedly acted in the interest of 22 Luke Adams Insurance Agency. (Doc. 373 at 2.) In doing so, Symetra makes three 23 contentions: (1) it did not present this argument for the first time at oral argument; (2) even 24 if it did, parties may present new legal arguments in opposition to motions for 25 reconsideration; and (3) Symetra did not waive this argument. 26 First, Symetra did not raise this argument in its response to Adams’ motion for 27 reconsideration. (See Doc. 363.) Symetra cites its response to support the contention that it 28 did raise this argument prior to oral argument: 1 The Panel remanded to the Steigleman district court for resolution of that factual issue. In doing so, it specifically left open a legal point that the District 2 Court could consider—whether TAA’s and mgc’s activity in establishing or maintaining an employee benefit plan was activity attributable to the 3 Steigleman Insurance Agency because an ERISA statute defined employer to “mean[] any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the 4 interest of an employer….” 29 U.S.C. §1002(5). . . . 5 Accordingly, even if the Ninth Circuit denies Symetra’s petition for rehearing en banc, Symetra may still pursue its ERISA preemption defense. 6 7 (Doc. 363 at 3–4.) In its response, Symetra summarized the Steigleman holding and argued 8 that it could still pursue its ERISA defense despite its unsuccessful motion for summary 9 judgment. Nowhere in this section or the response does Symetra argue that TAA or MGC 10 group acted on behalf of Adams, fall under ERISA’s definition of “employer,” and thus 11 established and maintained an ERISA plan as the “employer.” Nowhere in this section does 12 Symetra even mention or discuss Adams or his business. 13 Second, whether parties may present new arguments on a motion for reconsideration 14 is not the issue. At issue is whether parties may present new arguments at oral argument. 15 As stated in footnote two of its September 19, 2022 Order, the Court declined to consider 16 any arguments Symetra raised for the first time at oral argument. See Health Indus. Bus. 17 Commc’ns Council Inc. v. Animal Health Inst., 481 F. Supp. 3d 941, 961 n.7 (D. Ariz. 18 2020) (citing Valentine v. City of Chicago, 452 F.3d 670, 680 (7th Cir. 2006) 19 (“[A]rguments raised for the first time at oral argument are waived.”)); Acasio v. Lucy, No. 20 14-CV-04689-JSC, 2017 WL 1316537, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017) (“It is even more 21 unfair and prejudicial to raise new arguments and authorities for the first time at oral 22 argument, taking the opposing party by surprise and affording no opportunity to respond 23 whatsoever.”). 24 Finally, the Court did not hold that Symetra cannot present the aforementioned 25 ERISA argument at trial. Symetra moved for summary judgment on the issues of ERISA, 26 insurance bad faith, and punitive damages. (Docs. 200, 202.) The Court denied those 27 motions. (Docs. 281, 372.) Symetra may still present arguments related to those issues at 28 trial. The parties shall therefore meet and confer regarding the joint pretrial order pursuant □□ to the Court’s September 19, 2022 Order. 2 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company’s Motion for || Clarification is GRANTED. 4 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2022. 5 6 * □ Honorable J cml 7; United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _3-