Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03294/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03294-1/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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

SANDRA BREBER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP GROUP

ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE

PLAN,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03294 JSW

ORDER RE PARTIES’

STIPULATION

On April 6, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation providing that Plaintiff’s claim for

benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), should be reviewed

by this Court de novo. Pursuant to the stipulation, the parties seek an order from this Court

finding that there is good cause to review Plaintiff’s claims de novo. The parties may stipulate

to the underlying facts warranting de novo review, but the Court will not accept the parties’

unsupported stipulation determining what legal standard the Court should apply. A Court shall

review de novo a claim for ERISA benefits (1) if an ERISA plan does not vest the plan

administrator with discretion to determine benefit eligibility or construe the terms of the plan; or

(2) even if the plan administrator is vested with such discretion, there is a serious conflict of

interest between the administrator and the employee. Bendixen v. Standard Ins. Co., 185 F.3d

939, 942-43 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties to 

Case 3:05-cv-03294-JSW Document 15 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

supplement their stipulation by no later than April 25, 2006, in order to clarify what underlying

facts they stipulate to which warrant the application of de novo review to Plaintiff’s claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03294-JSW Document 15 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2