Pernal v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
| Michael Pernal |
| UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company |
| 1:2026cv00728 |
| February 23, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| S Kato Crews |
| Timothy P O'Hara |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1101 E.R.I.S.A. |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 22, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff Michael Pernal All parties do not consent.. (Bulger, Thomas) |
| Filing 10 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Other Affiliate United Healthcare Services, Inc. for UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company. (Hetherington, Thomas) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company.(Hetherington, Thomas) |
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Order of Reference, this Court will hold the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling Conference on May 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (Mountain Time) in Courtroom C-402, on the fourth floor of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse located at 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294. Although this Court generally prefers in-person attendance, counsel who are outside Colorado may appear remotely. To connect to the courtroom remotely via video teleconference, counsel shall use the attached Cisco Meeting App Instructions. This Court gives the Parties the option to vacate the Scheduling Conference after they submit their Proposed Scheduling Order. If there is no dispute over a material term and the Parties jointly prefer to vacate the Scheduling Conference, then they may request this Court to do so by way of a joint email to Chambers. Thereupon this Court will enter the Parties' Proposed ERISA Scheduling Order as submitted. The Parties shall jointly prepare a Proposed Scheduling Order that is appropriate for this kind of case such as the ERISA-specific form. No later than seven days before the Scheduling Conference, the Parties shall (1) file their Proposed Scheduling Order onto the case docket sheet and (2) submit the proposed ERISA Scheduling Order in Word format by joint email, copying all Parties, to Chambers at #o'[email protected]. By Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 3/23/2026. (ggill, )
|
| Filing 7 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Answer or Respond to the Complaint by Defendant UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company answer due 4/1/2026. (Hetherington, Thomas) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael Pernal. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company served on 2/25/2026, answer due 3/18/2026. (Bulger, Thomas) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE ENCOURAGING CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION: This district's magistrate judges play a crucial role in the work and structure of the district court and the administration of justice. Under Local Rule 72.2, the parties have the option to consent to their case being presided over by a magistrate judge instead of a district judge. This court encourages parties to meaningfully confer and consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction. There are many benefits to consenting. One such benefit is having a single judicial officer preside over every aspect of your case rather than two. A second benefit is the certainty of not having your trial date vacated when set before a magistrate judge. District judges preside over felony criminal cases and those cases receive priority over civil cases because of a criminal defendant's speedy trial rights. Magistrate judges do not preside over felony criminal cases, and therefore, they do not have to vacate civil trials because of criminal cases. If the parties do not choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, they should keep in mind Local Rule 72.3. Under this rule, the parties may consent to the final determination of a dispositive motion (motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss) by the assigned magistrate judge by filing a notice of consent for that motion. Please refer to Local Rule 72.3 for more information on that option. Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is voluntary, and no adverse consequence will result if one or more parties decline to consent. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/23/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara for non-dispositive matters. 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 non-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 2/23/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, )
|
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (eguth, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company (Filing fee $ 405,Receipt Number ACODC-10837572)Attorney Thomas A. Bulger added to party Michael Pernal(pty:pla), filed by Michael Pernal. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons proposed Summons)(Bulger, Thomas) |
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: Pernal v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Michael Pernal | |
| Represented By: | Thomas A. Bulger |
| 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: UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Thomas F. A. Hetherington |
| 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.
