Wit v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
- Joseph Spero
- 3:14-cv-02346
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, Judge Spero granted a stay until remand scope is decided and tolled affected individual claim deadlines for 120 days after notice.
Former members of the denial-of-benefits class whose claims were no longer subject to class treatment, as well as the parties’ ongoing case-management and remand proceedings.
What happened
In David Wit, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, former members of a denial-of-benefits class faced notice after the Ninth Circuit reversed certification of that class. The plaintiffs asked the court to briefly pause those claims while it decided the scope of the remand and to preserve individual claims that were no longer eligible for class treatment.
United Behavioral Health did not oppose tolling the limitations period for those individual claims, but argued that notice should be sent immediately. The court decided that delaying notice briefly would better protect former class members because the remand decision could affect their choices about pursuing individual claims. The court did not decide whether the limitations period was already running.
Judge Spero granted the motion, stayed the class members’ denial-of-benefits claims until the court rules on the scope of remand, and tolled the limitations period for affected individual claims until 120 days after notice. He also vacated the scheduled motion hearing, adjusted briefing and case-management dates, and set a hearing on the scope of remand.
The detailed version
- Wit v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company · No. 3:14-cv-02346
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs moved for a partial stay and related relief. They asked the court to pause the case as to class members’ denial-of-benefits claims until the court resolved the scope of the remand. They also asked the court to toll, meaning temporarily stop the running of, the limitations period for individual denial-of-benefits claims that were no longer subject to class treatment, until 120 days after affected class members received notice.
The opinion states that the Ninth Circuit had reversed certification of the denial-of-benefits class. The parties agreed that former class members should receive notice of that ruling and that the limitations period for their individual claims should be tolled for 120 days after notice, to the extent that period had not already expired. The parties disagreed only about timing: United Behavioral Health argued that notice should be sent immediately, while plaintiffs sought a short stay while the court considered the scope of the remand.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(B)(i), which authorizes orders requiring notice to class members to protect them and fairly conduct the action. The court concluded that delaying notice for the brief period needed to resolve the remand issue would better protect former class members. The court explained that its decision on remand could affect the information those individuals considered and the choices they made about pursuing individual claims.
The court did not decide whether the limitations period was currently running. It also did not decide United Behavioral Health’s position that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate left the court without authority to amend, alter, or modify the decertification order. Those issues remained under briefing.
Ruling and scheduling orders
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the motion. The court ordered that:
- The case is stayed as to the class members’ denial-of-benefits claims until the court rules on the scope of remand. - The limitations period for individual denial-of-benefits claims that are no longer subject to class treatment is tolled until 120 days after notice is provided to the affected class members. - Plaintiffs’ reply on the scope of remand is due November 20, 2023, and United Behavioral Health’s sur-reply is due November 27, 2023. - A hearing on the scope of remand is set for December 8, 2023, unless the court resolves the issue without a hearing beforehand. - The case-management conference is moved from December 15, 2023, to December 8, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. - The previously scheduled November 3, 2023, hearing on the motion is vacated.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.