South Carolina > Federal > District Court > General
Specialized Case Management Order - Specialized Interrogatories - Joint Stipulation Instructions (ERISA) - South Carolina
| Specialized Case Management Order - Specialized Interrogatories - Joint Stipulation Instructions (ERISA) Form. This is a South Carolina form and can be used in General District Court Federal . |
|
||||||
 Get this form for FREE as a print-only pdf |
|||||||
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA [DIVISION [ALL CAPS]] DIVISION C/A No.: [Case Number] [Plaintiff] Plaintiff, vs. [Defendant] Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SPECIALIZED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.) This case appears to request entitlement to benefits pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. In light of the claim for relief as set forth in the complaint (or the grounds for removal in Defendant's Notice of Removal or the defenses in Defendant's Answer), the court orders as follows: 1. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff is required to respond to the attached Specialization Interrogatories. Defendant is required to respond to the same interrogatories within thirty (30) days after receiving Plaintiff's Responses. Defendant shall, at the same time, produce: (a) the governing plan document; (b) the summary plan description; and (c) the administrative record relevant to the particular claim at issue. The responses to the interrogatories and related production are to be served on opposing counsel and are not to be filed with the court. 2. If the parties agree that all of the claims in the case are preempted by ERISA, then within fifteen (15) days after Defendant serves its Responses to the attached Specialized Interrogatories, the parties are required to confer and to discuss the issues raised by the attached Joint Stipulation Instructions for ERISA Cases, to complete the exchange of any documents on which they may rely including confirmation that the full administrative record and controlling documents have been produced, and to set a date for mediation of the action. Within one week following the conference, the parties 1 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com shall file a joint certification: (a) stating the date on which they conferred; (b) advising the court of any issues raised by the Joint Stipulation on which the parties are not in agreement; (c) advising the court if either party objects to the procedure for disposition of the action proposed by the Joint Stipulation Instructions; (d) confirming that they have exchanged all documents on which either party intends to rely for resolution of the action; and (e) advising the court of the date set for mediation. The parties shall not file either the Joint Stipulation or any portion of the administrative record at the time of the filing of the certification. Supplementation of the record after the certification is filed with the court will not be allowed absent consent or upon showing of good cause for the delay in production. 3. In the event the parties disagree as to whether some or all of the claims in the case are controlled or preempted by ERISA, the party asserting ERISA preemption shall file, within fifteen (15) days after Defendant serves its Responses to the attached Specialized ERISA Interrogatories, a written memorandum setting forth the grounds and legal basis on which the party asserts the claims are preempted by ERISA. The form of the memorandum and the time and manner for filing any response or reply memoranda shall be governed by the provisions of Local Rule 7.00. If the court finds that some or all of the claims are preempted by ERISA, then within fifteen (15) days after such ruling, the parties are required to complete the Joint Stipulation conference outlined in Paragraph 2 above. If the court finds that some but not all of the claims are preempted by ERISA, then the parties are to propose in the Joint Stipulation how the court should proceed with any non-ERISA claims. 4. Mediation shall be completed within thirty (30) days following the conference addressed in Paragraph 2 above. 5. If the matter is not resolved by mediation, the parties shall, within sixty (60) days after the conference addressed in Paragraph 2 above, file cross-memoranda in support of judgment with respect to all benefits claims governed by ERISA. The Joint Stipulation shall be filed at the same 2 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com time. Each party shall have five (5) days thereafter to file an optional reply. These memoranda should follow the form of Local Rule 7.05. All references in memoranda shall be to the consecutively-numbered page of the attachments to the Joint Stipulation. In its discretion, the court may order a hearing. Unless so ordered, the court will decide the ERISA benefits issues upon the record before it without a hearing. Motions for summary judgment need not be filed. Any party objecting to the court disposing of the case on the Joint Stipulation must file an objection with or prior to the filing of the joint certification required by Paragraph 2 of this order. The procedures set forth in this order are intended to supersede and replace the requirements generally applicable under Rules 26(a), (d) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This order supersedes any earlier entered scheduling order. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: _________________ ____________________, South Carolina 3 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com SPECIALIZED INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PARTIES 1. PREEMPTION ISSUES: ERISA provides for preemption of sate law claims which relate to an ERISA plan.1 Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts any state law claims, each party should state whether it contends any of plaintiff's state law claims survive ERISA preemption. If any party contends any state law claims survive preemption, that party should set forth the factual and legal basis for this position and provide a list of any claims beyond those provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1132 which the party believes survive preemption, including claims asserted under other federal laws. 2. PERMISSIVE AMENDMENT OF PLEADING: It is this court's general policy to allow liberal amendment of the complaint to assert ERISA claims if the court finds the originally asserted claims to be preempted by ERISA. If the plaintiff asserts state law claims which are or may be preempted, each party should state its position regarding amendment of the complaint.2 3. STANDARD OF REVIEW: As a general rule, this court will conduct a de novo review of a benefits denial decision unless the controlling plan documents grant the plan or claims administrator discretion to interpret or apply the plan's terms. An abuse of discretion standard is applied if appropriate
|
|||||||
