McGovern v. Hartford Insurance Company, The
| Nora McGovern |
| Hartford Insurance Company, The |
| 1:2025cv02525 |
| August 13, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| S Kato Crews |
| Scott T Varholak |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 34 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Matthew B. Wesley on behalf of Hartford Insurance Company, TheAttorney Matthew B. Wesley added to party Hartford Insurance Company, The(pty:dft) (Wesley, Matthew) |
| Filing 33 ANSWER to #32 Amended Complaint by Hartford Insurance Company, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A STD Program Booklet, #2 Exhibit B Apr. 7, 2022 Letter, #3 Exhibit C Apr. 8, 2022 Letter)(Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 32 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT against The Hartford Insurance Company, filed by Nora McGovern. (amona,) |
Filing 31
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motion") [#13] which has been referred to this Court [#19]. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her Complaint against Defendant in the Arapahoe County District Court. [#4] The single-page Complaint references long-term disability benefits but does not contain any factual allegations. [Id.] Rather, it states that Plaintiff "intend[s] to sue [Defendant]" and then identifies the relief sought. [Id.] Based upon the reference to long-term disability benefits, Defendant construed the Complaint as being controlled by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. ("ERISA") and, based upon that federal question as well as diversity of citizenship, removed the matter to this Court. [#1] On August 20, 2025, Defendant answered the Complaint and added four pages of facts not found in the Complaint itself. [#12 at 1-4] Nine days later, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking judgment on the pleadings and relying heavily upon the facts asserted in the Answer. [#13] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), "[a]fter the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." In reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must "accept all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grant all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor." Sanders v. Mtn. Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir.2012) (quotation omitted). "A judgment on the pleadings is a drastic remedy," and should not be granted unless "the movant clearly establishes that no material issues of fact remain to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Power Motive Corp. v. Mannesmann Demag Corp., 617 F. Supp. 1048, 1049 (D. Colo. 1985); see also Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2012) (same); Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Hourani, 190 F. Supp. 3d 29, 32 (D.D.C. 2016) ("Because a Rule 12(c) motion would summarily extinguish litigation at the threshold and foreclose the opportunity for discovery and factual presentation, the Court must treat [such a] motion with the greatest of care." (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)). Here, the Complaint does not contain any facts. [#1] Instead, all of the facts are supplied by Defendant's answer and other pleadings. [#13 at 2-5] But Plaintiff appears to dispute these facts. [#14 at 2-17] Given the unusual procedural posture of this case, and in consultation with United States District Judge S. Kato Crews, the Court has determined that the best approach is to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, detailing the precise nature of her claim, and including all facts that support her claim. Then, should Defendant choose to file a motion to dismiss, Defendant may do so. Thus, it is ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint by December 2, 2025. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to consult with the Federal Pro Se Clinic prior to filing her Amended Complaint. Information about the Federal Pro Se Clinic can be obtained from at https://www.cobar.org/fpsc. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 11/5/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry(stvlc6, )
|
|
Filing 30
ORDER striking Plaintiff's #29 Opposition filing, which the Court construes as a surreply opposing Defendant's #13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this District's Local Rules of Civil Practice allow for surreplies as a matter of right. In the Tenth Circuit, "[a] district court must permit a surreply where it relies on new materials--i.e., new evidence or new legal argument--raised in a reply brief." United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Boulder Plaza Residential, LLC, No. 06-cv-00037-PAB-CBS, 2010 WL 420046, at *10 (D. Colo. Feb. 1, 2010) (citing Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1192 (10th Cir. 2006)). "However, where the materials are not new or a court disregards any materials that are, that court need not permit a surreply." Id. (citing Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 119697 (10th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff has not been granted leave to file a surreply. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #29 Surreply is STRICKEN. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 11/3/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (stvlc6, )
|
| Filing 29 STRICKEN- Opposition to Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff Nora McGovern. (jrobe, ) Modified on 11/3/2025 to strike document per ECF 30 Order. (ggill, ). Modified on 11/3/2025 to edit text. (sphil, ). |
| Filing 28 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #23 Order Appointing Counsel Addressed to Nora McGovern. (ggill, ) |
|
Filing 27
SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 10/21/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (schap, )
|
| Filing 26 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 10/21/2025. Discovery due by 1/16/2026. FTR: A402. (schap, ) |
| Filing 25 Proposed Scheduling Order by Defendant Hartford Insurance Company, The. (Mack, Cristin) |
|
Filing 23
ORDER denying #20 Motion to Appoint Counsel by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 10/6/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(schap, )
|
| Filing 22 REPLY to Response to #13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Hartford Insurance Company, The. (Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 24 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff Nora McGovern All parties do not consent. (jrobe, ) |
| Filing 21 MEMORANDUM regarding #20 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Nora McGovern. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/3/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
| Filing 20 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Nora McGovern. (jrobe, ) |
| Filing 19 MEMORANDUM regarding #13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Hartford Insurance Company, The. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/2/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
| Filing 18 ADVISEMENT TO PRO SE LITIGANTS OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES: Since Plaintiff is not represented by counsel the Court would like to make Plaintiff aware of a couple of resources available to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The first is the Federal Pro Se Clinic which provides free legal assistance to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Clinic helps to prepare responsive pleadings, assist with other common pleadings, answers procedural questions, and explains legal concepts such as jurisdiction, venue, and service of process. Plaintiff may contact the Clinic by phone (303-824-5395) or online at www.cobar.org/cofederalproseclinic.The second is the Federal Limited Appearance Program (FLAP). FLAP aims to address the difficulty pro se parties in civil litigation sometimes face when appearing in court for certain non-dispositive hearings or conferences--such as scheduling conferences, status conferences, discovery hearings, and settlement conferences--by providing those litigants with a volunteer attorney who appears with them in court. Information about FLAP may be found online at www.cobar.org/For-Members/Young-Lawyers-Division/YLD-Application. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/2/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
|
Filing 17
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak for all motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, and (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other dispositive motions. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the request of the parties by motion, this Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge, at their discretion, may convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Standing Order and Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/2/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, )
|
| Filing 16 CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to #15 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent. Case randomly reassigned to Judge S. Kato Crews. All future pleadings should be designated as 25-cv-02525-SKC. (Text Only Entry) (jrobe, ) |
| Filing 15 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Defendant Hartford Insurance Company, The All parties do not consent.. (Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE/Opposition to #13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff Nora McGovern. (sphil, ) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendant Hartford Insurance Company, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Michelle Landry)(Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 12 ANSWER to #4 Complaint by Hartford Insurance Company, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Policy, #2 Exhibit B - HL letter dated May 27, 2022, #3 Exhibit C - HL letter dated November 29, 2023_Redacted, #4 Exhibit D - HL letter dated March 29, 2024_Redacted, #5 Exhibit E - HL letter dated Mary 15, 2024_Redacted, #6 Exhibit F - HL letter dated May 23, 2024_Redacted, #7 Exhibit G - HL paid LTD benefits from April to August 2024, #8 Exhibit H - HL lettters dated October 7 and 21, 2024, #9 Exhibit I - HL letter dated October 25, 2024_Redacted, #10 Exhibit J - HL letter dated November 14, 2024_Redacted, #11 Exhibit K - HL letter dated November 25, 2024_Redacted, #12 Exhibit L - HL letter dated February 13, 2025, #13 Exhibit M - HL letter dated February 28, 2025, #14 Exhibit N - Plaintiff's letters of intent to sue dated April 8, 2025, #15 Exhibit O - HL letter dated April 22, 2025)(Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE of Mailing by Clerk of Court re #10 Order, to Nora McGovern at 3765 South Delaware Street Englewood, CO 80110. Text Only Entry (schap, ) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER Setting Deadline for Filing Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction Form and Setting Scheduling Conference by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 8/18/2025. Consent Form due by 10/7/2025. Proposed Scheduling Order due 10/14/2025. Scheduling Conference set for 10/21/2025 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. (schap, )
|
| Filing 9 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (jrobe, ) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER DRAWING CASE. After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the court has determined that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the case will be drawn to a presiding judge and, if applicable, to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c). Accordingly, it isORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a presiding judge and, if applicable,to a magistrate judge. Case randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak for all further proceedings. All future pleadings should be designated as 25-cv-02525-STV. by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 08/14/2025. (jrobe, )
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Cristin Jeanette Mack on behalf of Hartford Insurance Company, The (Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc., Corporate Parent Hartford Holding, Inc., Other Affiliate Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company for The Hartford Insurance Company. (Mack, Cristin) |
| Filing 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (a). Text Only Entry. (echa, ) |
| Filing 4 COMPLAINT against Hartford Insurance Company, The, filed by Nora McGovern.(echa, ) |
| Filing 3 FIRST AND FINAL NOTICE TO ALL ATTORNEY(S) AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES IN REMOVED, TRANSFERRED, OR OTHER CASES. To receive any further notice in a case removed or transferred to this court, or special matters including discovery disputes, bankruptcy appeals, or withdrawals of reference, Multi-district litigation (MDL), etc., all attorneys and unrepresented parties must enter an appearance under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(a). An attorney must be an active member of this court's bar and be in good standing in accordance with D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3. A waiver of the fee for bar admission may apply in limited situations. (Text Only Entry) (echa, ) |
| Filing 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REMINDER to Filer. It is the responsibility of the attorney or pro se party removing the case to follow Local Rule D.C.COLO.LCivR 81.1 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1446a when filing a Notice of Removal. (Text only entry.) (echa, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by The Hartford Insurance Company from Arapahoe County, Case Number 25cv250. (Filing fee $ 405, Receipt Number ACODC-10493879), filed by The Hartford Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Civil Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Certificate of Service, #3 Exhibit C - Arapahoe County Colorado Parcel Search, #4 Exhibit D - Plaintiffs Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Exhibit E - Copy of all pleadings filed in District Court, #6 Exhibit Civil Cover Sheet)(Mack, Cristin) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: McGovern v. Hartford Insurance Company, The | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Nora McGovern | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Hartford Insurance Company, The | |
| Represented By: | Cristin Jeanette Mack |
| Represented By: | Matthew B. Wesley |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
