Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04530/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04530-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD BARLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

UEBT RETIREE HEALTH PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04530-VC 

ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING

The court requests that the parties file supplemental briefs on the following questions:

1. Assuming the court concludes that the SPD is ambiguous about whether the plan 

was required to cover Barling's deductible, is it appropriate to resolve this plan 

interpretation question on cross-motions for summary judgment, or should there be 

a bench trial? What evidence, if any, should the court consider in resolving this 

question, and does that evidence give rise to a dispute of material fact?

2. Assuming the court concludes that it must review the trustees' interpretation of the 

SPD de novo, must it nonetheless resolve any ambiguity in favor of the trustees?

3. Assuming the court concludes that the people involved in the appeals process 

misunderstood Mr. Barling's argument and did not answer the question he 

presented, would a remand be appropriate?

The briefs, which should be no longer than 10 pages, are due June 1, 2015 by 5:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04530-VC Document 44 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 1