Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00323/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00323-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN BECKSTRAND, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

ELECTRONIC ARTS GROUP LONG )

TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE )

PLAN, )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0323 AWI LJO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT,

VACATING JUDGMENT, AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF THE

COURT TO RE-OPEN CASE

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 22,

2007 HEARING

(Document #33)

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief under the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) & (3), as

amended, (“ERISA”). 

On August 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding

the standard of review. Plaintiff requested a finding by the court that the court’s review of

this action would be de novo. On November 2, 2005, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment and found that the standard of review for this action would be abuse of

discretion.

On December 13, 2005, the court held a bench trial. The court heard oral arguments

from the parties. Pursuant to the court’s order, the parties filed Proposed Findings of Fact

Case 1:05-cv-00323-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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 2

and Conclusions of Law and the administrative record. On October 23, 2006, the court

entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding for Defendants. The Clerk of the

Court then entered judgment in favor of Defendant.

On November 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment in light of

Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9 Cir.2006) (en banc). Plaintiff states th

that the court should vacate the judgment and allow for discovery under the Ninth Circuit’s

holding in Abatie.

On November 14, 2006, Defendant filed an opposition. Defendant agrees that the

judgment should be vacated and the court should review the claim in accordance with the

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Abatie. Defendant states that the parties disagree on whether the

court should allow discovery.

ORAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiff’s motion has been set for hearing on January 22, 2007. The court has

reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral

argument. Local Rule 78-230(h). Therefore, the court will vacate the hearing and issue an

order on the pending motion forthwith.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 th th

Cir.1992). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), any motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no

later than ten days after entry of judgment. Rule 59(e), however, is an “extraordinary remedy,

to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9 Cir.2000). Amendment or th

alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is presented with

newly-discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial

decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. 

Case 1:05-cv-00323-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9 Cir. 2001); School Dist. No. 1J th

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). This showing is a th

“high hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9 Cir. 2001). A district court's th

denial of a motion for a new trial or to amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247

F.3d 986, 992 (9 Cir. 2001). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision th

on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts. Coughlin v.

Tailhook Ass'n, 112 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9 Cir. 1997). th

DISCUSSION

The court finds that Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9

th

Cir. 2006), changed how the court is to review administrator decisions under the Employee

Retirement Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Under Abatie, abuse of discretion review

appears to be merited in most cases when the plan confers sufficient discretion to the plan

administrator. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963-67. Abatie also changed how courts are to apply the

abuse of discretion standard, including (1) eliminating the need for plaintiffs to produce

evidence of a serious conflict, see id. at 964; (2) allowing courts to “tailor the review” after

weighing “all the facts and circumstances” that might indicate a conflict of interest, see id. at

964, 968; and (3) allowing the court to weigh facts and circumstances outside of the

administrative record, see id. at 965. Because Abatie creates such a significant shift in

analysis for ERISA claims, the court finds that there was an intervening change in controlling

law that mandates the court vacating judgment in this action. 

While the parties agree the judgment must be vacated, the parties disagree on whether

and how much discovery Plaintiffs may now conduct in light of Abatie. The court finds that

this issue cannot be decided as part of this motion to amend judgment because it has not been

adequately briefed by the parties. As this matter concerns discovery and the court’s ability to

conduct fact finding beyond the administrative record, the court finds this action should be

Case 1:05-cv-00323-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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

referred to the Magistrate Judge to hold a scheduling conference and hear discovery motions. 

See Local Rule 72-302 (c) (1) & (13).

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The previously set hearing date of January 22, 2007, is VACATED,

and the parties shall not appear at that time;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgement is GRANTED;

3. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgement entered

on October 23, 2006 are VACATED;

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-open this action; 

5. The parties are DIRECTED to set a scheduling conference before the

Magistrate Judge; and

6. Discovery matters are HEREBY REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00323-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 4