Driscoll

Driscoll v. MetLife Insurance

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 8, 20213:15-cv-01162California1,895 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

3 In the underlying dispute, Driscoll filed several ERISA3 claims against 4 Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“Metlife”) and Anheuser-Busch 5 Companies, LLC (“A-BC”) to recover long-term disability benefits. The Honorable 6 Janis L. Sammartino presided over the case. After cross-motions for summary 7 judgment, Judge Sammartino granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 8 and the judgment was entered on November 9, 2020. (ECF No. 132). On August 9 6, 2021, approximately nine months after the judgment was entered, Judge 10 Sammartino submitted a Notice to the Clerk of Court informing the Clerk that she 11 recently learned a family member owned stock in Metlife, Inc., the parent 12 company to Metlife. Judge Sammartino stated she was unaware of the financial 13 interest during the pendency of the case and therefore the interest did not impact 14 her decision. (ECF No. 139). She subsequently recused from the case. (ECF No. 15 141). The Court has been advised by the Clerk that Judge Sammartino also 16 submitted similar notices and recused in other cases. 17 Pursuant to Advisory Opinion 71 of the Judicial Conference Code of 18 Conduct Committee, the Clerk…

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.