Schmidt v. Standard Life Insurance Company, et al.

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Relevant Background
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiffs Janice Schmidt and Judy A. Vann-Eubanks (“Plaintiffs”) filed
a class action complaint against Defendants Standard Life Insurance Company and Protective Life
Insurance Company (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1).
On December 12, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings in this
action pending the disposition by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of several cases before it involving
issues material to this litigation. (Doc. 92). At the Court’s direction, the parties filed several periodic
status reports that provided updates regarding the relevant cases pending decision before the Ninth
Circuit.
JANICE SCHMIDT, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB
ORDER ON PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST TO
MAINTAIN STAY
(Doc. 102)
ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE ON
JANUARY 13, 2026, AT 10:00 AM, AND
DIRECTING THE FILING OF A JOINT REPORT
6-Day Deadline
Case 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB Document 103 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On July 28, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a notice that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California had preliminarily approved a class action settlement in the matter of Morneau et
al. v. Protective Life Ins. Co., No. 3:22-cv-01861-AHG (S.D. Cal.) (“Morneau”). (Doc. 99). Counsel
for Plaintiffs represented in their notice that, if the settlement agreement in Morneau received final
approval, it would “resolve all the claims in this action,” as well as the claims in a separate, related
action before this court, Allen v. Protective Life Co. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.)
(“Allen”). Id. at 2. In a subsequent joint status report, counsel for the parties represented that the
Morneau action purported to merge both this case (Schmidt) and the Allen action into the Morneau
settlement. (Doc. 100).
On September 25, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 90 days
of entry of the order or within 30 days of the anticipated ruling on the motion for final approval of the
settlement agreement in Morneau (which the parties alternatively refer to as Milan v. Protective Life
Ins. Co.). (Doc. 101).
Parties’ Joint Status Report and Request to Maintain Stay
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint status report, filed on December 29, 2025. (Doc.
102). Therein, the parties report that the Morneau settlement received final approval on October 25,
2025. Id. at 2. According to counsel, both named Plaintiffs in this case filed claims in the Morneau
settlement that are being adjudicated by the court-appointed settlement administrator. Id. As such,
counsel for the parties represent that the stay in this matter should remain in place and continue through
a final adjudication of the claims of the named Plaintiffs in this matter or 90 days, whichever is sooner.
Id.
The undersigned has reviewed the order granting final approval of class action settlement in
Morneau and notes it provides that no class member was excluded from the class (see Morneau, Doc.
86 at 14). The order also provides that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
retains jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the settlement agreement. Id. at 16.
Given counsels’ representations that the Morneau settlement approved by a sister court more
than two months ago resolves all the claims in this action, it is unclear why the stay of this case that has
been in place for approximately two years should remain in place. If the claims in this case are resolved
Case 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB Document 103 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by the Morneau settlement, as counsel for Plaintiffs previously represented, it does not appear that
anything of the complaint remains within the Court’s jurisdiction, and without further explanation by
the parties, neither a favorable nor unfavorable decision by the claims administrator concerning
Plaintiffs’ claims reportedly under administrative adjudication would change the relevant analysis.
* * * * *
Therefore, the Court sets a status conference for January 13, 2026, at 10:30 AM to address the
parties’ request to maintain the stay in this action. In advance of the status conference, the parties will
be directed to file a joint report addressing (1) why the stay of this action should be maintained, (2) what
of the complaint remains within the Court’s jurisdiction, and (3) how a favorable or unfavorable decision
by the claims administrator concerning Plaintiffs’ claims would inform the Court’s analysis as to
maintaining the stay of this action.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties are ORDERED to appear for status conference before the undersigned on
January 13, 2026, at 10:00 AM. Counsel SHALL REQUEST and obtain from the
undersigned’s courtroom deputy at least 24 hours in advance of the conference Zoom
connection information to facilitate the parties’ appearance; and
2. No later than January 12, 2026, the parties SHALL FILE a joint report addressing the
following: (1) why the stay of this action should be maintained; (2) what of the complaint
remains within the Court’s jurisdiction; and (3) how a favorable or unfavorable decision by
the claims administrator concerning Plaintiffs’ claims would change the Court’s analysis as
to maintaining the stay of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026 ___________________ _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB Document 103 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3