Lawyers

Attorney Profiles

Stacy Monahan Tucker

STACY MONAHAN TUCKER

Partner — Seattle, Redwood City

EXPERIENCE

Stacy Monahan Tucker is based in the firm’s Seattle office and represents clients throughout the Ninth Circuit. She specializes in the representation of insurers in ERISA, bad faith and coverage litigation. Her past representations include disability insurance bad faith claims, ERISA disability litigation, and property and liability claims brought under homeowner, automobile and commercial policies.

Ms. Tucker also has significant experience in employment litigation, including advising on and litigating complex compensation disputes and handling related SEC investigations, heading internal whistleblower investigations and defending against the related government investigations, wrongful termination lawsuits and advising on executive employment issues and ERISA benefits issues. She has particular expertise in the intersection of employment law and intellectual property protection, including the protection of trade secrets from employee or competitor theft, as well as privacy and data protection issues. Ms. Tucker also advises corporations with e-commerce and online listing issues, and represents clients in anti-counterfeiting and trademark, false advertising, unfair competition, trade dress and copyright litigation.

Ms. Tucker has extensive appellate experience and has filed successful appellate briefs before the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Federal Circuits. She is a regular speaker at the Association of California Insurance Companies’ General Counsel Seminar and has presented at the International Disability Insurance Society.  She has authored articles on the shift in law nationwide away from reimbursement for insurance defenses provided under reservation of rights, on the erosion of the attorney-client privilege for in-house attorneys, and has been interviewed on the importance of employment policies and procedures.

Ms. Tucker obtained her J.D. from The University of Chicago Law School and her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Chicago, from which she graduated cum laude with honors in the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Science and Medicine. She is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and Washington, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Admission to Montana, Idaho and Alaska is pending as Ms. Tucker positions herself to provide seamless representation to her clients throughout the Ninth Circuit. She is also admitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  Prior to joining the partnership at Ropers Majeski, Ms. Tucker practiced law at Jones Day and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan.  She is peer rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell,  its highest possible rating.


Ms. Tucker’s recent successes in court include:

  • Bascom v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston and The Regents of the University of California, Sup. Ct. of Cal.,  Court, Alameda County, Case No.  RG15767468 California Superior Court (2016)  Plaintiff sued insurer and prior employer for termination of disability benefits.  Plaintiff’s employer, The Regents of the University of California, was sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Regents was dismissed with prejudice after demurring to the complaint because the California Government Tort Claims Act bars tort claims against state entities like the University of California, and plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the Act by arguing that The Regents was “engaged in the business of insurance” by offering insurance policies to its employees and therefore subject to the California Insurance Codes was unavailing.

  • Moghaddam v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163303  (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) The court granted Liberty Life’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Where plaintiff had previously alleged in another court action against her employer that she was discriminated against for her national origin and terminated from her job pretextually after complaining, she was judicially estopped from later claiming that she had been disabled from that job at the time she was fired.

  • Boler v. 3D International, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163850 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015) The court granted Peerless’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Peerless with prejudice. Where 3D’s business liability insurance policy explicitly excluded coverage for claims of “trademark infringement”, it could not obtain coverage by attempting to style the claims against it as “slogan infringement.”  The claims did not meet the legal definition of “slogan infringement” and therefore there can be no coverage for the claims.

  • Sethi v. Seagate US LLC Grp. Disability Income Plan, 597 F. App'x 405, 406 (9th Cir. 2014) (upheld on appeal)

  • Prondzinksi v. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange, Sup. Ct. of Cal, Sonoma County, Case No. SCV-253507 (2014) Pro se Plaintiff sued her insurer after she received less than her policy limits in an uninsured motorist arbitration.  After successive successful demurrers, the court dismissed the case with prejudice as California Casualty’s arbitration of the case was required by law and its conduct during litigation was protected by the litigation privilege.
     
  • Perez-Jones v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston et al., Case No. CV 11-9518 JAK (AJW) (C.D. Cal 2014)  The court ruled after a bench trial that Plaintiff had knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights to pursue her claim under ERISA when she signed a severance agreement terminating her employment that explicitly waived ERISA rights,  affirmed, Perez Jones v Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston et al, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 6233 (9th Cir. 2016).
     
  • Rashed v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, Case No. 1:12-cv-00037-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. 2013) Plaintiffs alleged that over $250,000 in property was stolen from their residence in a 90 minute window, but were unable to provide any receipts or photographs of the items.  Their claim had been denied after investigation showed that plaintiffs were in the process of filing for bankruptcy, in direct contradiction to their statements to Safeco.  They filed suit for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as racial discrimination.  Through in-depth discovery and depositions we demonstrated significant holes in Plaintiffs’ claims.  After the conclusion of discovery, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims voluntarily with no settlement agreement rather than respond to our motion for summary judgment.
     
  • Johnson v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13867 (N.D. Cal. 2013) Where a pro se plaintiff sought to hold Liberty Mutual responsible for information provided to a court during criminal juvenile proceedings, the court upheld Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss the complaint as its actions were protected by the litigation privilege.
     
  •  Sethi v. Seagate US LLC Group Disability Income Plan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126140 (N.D. Cal. 2012)  The court ruled after a bench trial that Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston’s termination of plaintiff’s disability claim was not an abuse of discretion under ERISA.
     
  • Martin v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105244 (E.D. Cal. 2012) The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel interrogatory responses as impermissible requests for legal conclusions.
     
  • Whited v Round Table Dev’t Co. et al, Sup. Ct. of Cal, Solano County, Case No. FCS036987 (2011) After an auto accident while driving a personal vehicle to deliver pizza, Plaintiff sued to obtain uninsured motorist coverage benefits through his employer Round Table, though their policy covered only company-owned vehicles.  Plaintiff argued that Cal. Ins. Code 11580.2 required that Round Table purchase coverage for all vehicles.  Round Table and its insurer demurred as 11580.2 exempts excess and umbrella polices such as the Round Table policy.  The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
     
  • 1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co. et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. 2011)  The court ruled on summary judgment that Peerless Insurance Company had no duty to defend Plaintiffs’ under their commercial insurance policy in the underyling construction defect action brought against them because the alienated premises exclusion barred coverage.  Nor were the individual plaintiffs covered under the policy because they were not defined as insureds.  Finally, there was no breach of the  implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
     
  • Gray v. Comcast's Long Term Disability Ins. Plan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127384 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Plaintiff was a sales account representative for Comcast on an approved disability claim.  Plaintiff brought suit alleging that Liberty Life improperly calculated his Annual Benefits Base Rate from his commission-based salary, which in turn determined his monthly benefits.  The court ruled after bench trial that Plaintiff’s Annual Benefits Base Rate had been properly calculated by Liberty and there was no abuse of discretion.