Wit v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
- Joseph Spero
- 3:14-cv-02346
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, Judge Spero denied United Behavioral Health’s stay motion and granted plaintiffs’ request to file a surreply.
United Behavioral Health and the plaintiffs in the related cases. The denial allowed the proceedings to continue, and the parties were ordered to propose a schedule.
What happened
In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, United Behavioral Health asked Judge Spero to pause all proceedings while the Court of Appeals considered its request to require judgment in its favor on plaintiffs’ denial-of-benefits claim.
The court found that United Behavioral Health had not shown likely irreparable harm from continuing the case. It also found that the company had not made a sufficiently strong showing that it was likely to succeed in its appeal.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion to stay and granted plaintiffs’ request to file a surreply. He ordered the parties to meet and confer and propose a schedule for continuing the case by February 12, 2024.
The detailed version
- Wit v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company · No. 3:14-cv-02346
- Joseph Spero
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
United Behavioral Health (UBH) moved to stay, or pause, all proceedings in the related cases while the Court of Appeals considered UBH’s petition for a writ of mandamus. UBH sought an appellate order directing this court to enter judgment for UBH on plaintiffs’ denial-of-benefits claim and prohibiting further proceedings on that claim.
Plaintiffs asked for permission to file a surreply, which is an additional response to arguments raised in a reply brief. The court granted that request because UBH had made representations in its reply about the parties’ negotiations concerning a possible scheduling agreement, and the court found that fairness required allowing plaintiffs to respond.
Reasons for Denying the Stay
The court applied the factors governing a request to stay an order while an appeal is pending: whether the requesting party is likely to succeed, whether it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The court noted that the first two factors are most important and that the Ninth Circuit uses a sliding-scale approach, under which a stronger showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another.
The court found UBH’s claims of irreparable harm overstated. It explained that the Ninth Circuit typically decides petitions for a writ of mandamus within months, making UBH’s assertion that denying a stay would require it to go through the entire process again “hyperbole.” The court also stated that litigation expenses, even substantial and unrecoverable expenses, do not constitute irreparable harm.
Because UBH had not shown irreparable harm, the court stated that it did not need to consider the remaining stay factors. Even assuming that UBH’s showing required consideration of its likelihood of success, the court found that UBH had not made a sufficiently strong showing under the sliding-scale approach. The court had previously rejected UBH’s arguments about the scope of the mandate after considering extensive briefing and providing detailed reasoning. It concluded that UBH’s likelihood of prevailing was not strong enough to overcome the limited harm of allowing the case to proceed while the appellate petition was pending.
Disposition
The court DENIED UBH’s motion to stay. It also granted plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a surreply. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated schedule for proceeding with the case by February 12, 2024. If they could not agree, the court permitted them to submit separate proposals with limited briefing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.