Bruce

Bruce v. Hartford Life Insurance Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 21, 20192:17-cv-02201California5,705 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LORETTA BRUCE, No. 2:17-cv-02201-MCE-KJN Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

14 Defendant. 15 In this action, Plaintiff Loretta Bruce (“Plaintiff”) seeks redress under various California laws from Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Defendant”) arising from Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff’s long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits. Presently before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, as well as Defendant’s Motion to File Sur-reply and Motion to Strike. The matter is fully briefed, and for the reasons outlined below Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion to File Sur-reply (ECF No. 82) and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 63) are DENIED…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.