Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY HYDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEMPER NATIONAL SERVICES, INC.;

LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.;

BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.; VODAFONE

AMERICAS, INC.; VODAFONE AMERICAS,

INC., SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN;

VODAFONE AMERICAS, INC., LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE

HEALTH PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE DENTAL

PLAN; VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; and

DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1782 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO MODIFY

ORDER

ADJUDICATING

ERISA CLAIM AND

DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE HER

MOTION TO ENTER

PARTIAL JUDGMENT

On June 30, 2006, the Court issued an order granting

Plaintiff's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 for

adjudication of her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

claim against Defendants Kemper National Services, Inc. (Kemper);

Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Co. (Lumberman's); Broadspire

Services, Inc. (Broadspire); Vodafone Americas, Inc., Long Term

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 55 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

For a complete overview of the facts of this case, see the

Court's June 30, 2006 order.

2

Further, as discussed below, there is an additional ERISA

claim that presumably should be resolved by cross-motions pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

2

Disability Plan (the LTD Plan); and Vodafone Americas, Inc., Short

Term Disability Plan (the STD Plan) (collectively the Disability

Plan Defendants).1 On October 11, 2006, the Court issued an order

determining the amount of back benefits and pre-judgment interest

on Plaintiff's ERISA claim against the Disability Plan Defendants. 

Judgment has not entered because Plaintiff's non-ERISA claim has

not yet been adjudicated.2

On November 10, 2006, Plaintiff moved to modify the Court's

order granting her motion for adjudication of her ERISA claim

against the Disability Plan Defendants and moved pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of partial judgment

on that claim. The Disability Plan Defendants filed a statement of

non-opposition. Although judgment would not be entered against it,

Defendant Vodafone Americas, Inc., initially opposed the motion to

the extent that it might be considered dispositive of the claim

against it. Subsequently, these parties stipulated that the

Court's ERISA order should be modified, that entry of judgment as

to the disability benefits claim is appropriate, and as to the

effect of that judgment on the remaining claims. Having considered

all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff's motion to modify the order adjudicating the ERISA claim

and DENIES without prejudice the motion for entry of partial

judgment. 

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 55 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

DISCUSSION 

I. Modification of the Court's Order

Plaintiff first argues that the Ninth Circuit's recent

decision in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955

(9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), might require a modification of the

Court's order. However, Plaintiff argues, the Disability Plan

Defendants agree, and the Court finds that Abatie does not change

the outcome of the Court's order. 

In Abatie, the Ninth Circuit held that its earlier decision in

Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co. Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1323 (9th Cir.

1995), which the Court followed in ruling on the disability benefit

claim in this case, conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. 

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that "abuse of discretion review,

tempered by skepticism commensurate with the plan administrator's

conflict of interest," rather than de novo review applies in

situations where "a plan administrator denies benefits and (1) the

wording of the plan confers discretion on the plan administrator

and (2) the plan administrator has a conflict of interest." 458

F.3d at 959. 

In its order ruling on Plaintiff's disability benefits claim,

the Court, applying de novo review, found that she had established

that she was entitled to benefits under the terms of the Long Term

Disability plan. Although Abatie requires abuse of discretion,

rather than de novo, review in considering the denial of benefits

in this case, the Court reaches the same conclusion under both

standards of review. 

Disability Plan Defendants' only argument in support of

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 55 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

judgment in their favor was that Plaintiff's lawsuit was timebarred under a contractual provision, and the Court denied their

motion on multiple grounds. Because the Court's denial of the

motion was related to the lawsuit before it rather than a review of

the plan administrators' decisions, the standard of review was not

relevant to the decision.

Defendants' sole argument in opposition to Plaintiff's crossmotion for adjudication of her LTD claim was that she failed to

make a prima facie showing that she was disabled under the terms of

the plan. Because the LTD plan administrator denied Plaintiff's

claim for benefits on procedural grounds, it did not make a

disability determination. Therefore, the Court could not defer to

the LTD Plan's decision and made an independent determination. 

Even on a review for abuse of discretion, the Court could consider

all of the evidence related to Plaintiff's disability because it

was part of the administrative record, having been submitted to the

plan administrators. See June 30, 2006 Order at 23-24. Therefore,

the Court's determination that Plaintiff established that she is

disabled under the terms of the plan remains the same.

II. Entry of Judgment 

Plaintiff, Disability Plan Defendants and Vodafone Americas,

Inc., also stipulate that entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b)

is appropriate on the ERISA claim decided in the Court's June 30,

2006 order. However, Plaintiff's fifth cause of action is

apparently an additional ERISA claim on which no party has moved

for adjudication. In their answer to the complaint, Defendants

Vodafone Americas, Inc., the Vodafone Employee Health Plan, and the

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 55 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

Vodafone Employee Dental Plan, state that "Plaintiff's claims to

recover disability, health and dental benefits are completely

preempted by [ERISA]." Vodafone Americas, Inc. Answer at 3

(emphasis added). The Court's June 30, 2006 order resolved only

Plaintiff's disability benefits claim. Therefore, Plaintiff's

ERISA claims have not all been decided, and entry of partial

judgment is inappropriate. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for

entry of partial judgment without prejudice to renewal following

the resolution of the remaining ERISA claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion

to amend the June 30, 2006 order and DENIES without prejudice

Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b)

(Docket No. 48). A case management conference will be held on

January 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm. Plaintiffs and all non-Disability Plan

Defendants shall attend. Disability Plan Defendants need not

attend. Joint or separate case management statements shall be

filed a week before the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/18/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 55 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 5