Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04666/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04666-11/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 1

Plaintiff’s supplemental brief was filed September 29, 2006; defendant’s

supplemental brief was filed October 6, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MOSKOWITE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVEREN CAPITAL CORPORATION

GROUP DISABILITY INCOME PLAN,

Defendant /

No. C-03-4666 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO VACATE PORTION OF

ORDER OF AUGUST 10, 2005;

DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO

REBRIEF MERITS OF CLAIM FOR

BENEFITS

Before the Court are the parties’ respective supplemental briefs, submitted in light of

Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F. 3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006).1

Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its order of August 10, 2005, to the extent

such order found abuse of discretion review to be applicable. Plaintiff correctly notes that

the Ninth Circuit, in Abatie, has revised the methodology by which a district court

determines whether an abuse of discretion or de novo review applies. See id. at 965

(“When a plan confers discretion, abuse of discretion review applies; when it does not, de

novo review applies.”). Here, however, the Court’s prior ruling that abuse of discretion

review applies is correct under the revised methodology set forth in Abatie because, as set

forth in the Court’s order of August 10, 2005, “the plan language includes language that

Case 3:03-cv-04666-MMC Document 108 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

unambiguously provides the administrator with authority to determine eligibility for benefits

and to construe the terms in the plan: ‘[Defendant] shall possess the authority, in its sole

discretion, to construe the terms of this policy and to determine eligibility hereunder.’” (See

Order, filed August 10, 2005, at 7:11-15 (quoting Gray Decl. Ex. A at P-025).)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to vacate the portions of August 10, 2005 pertaining

to the standard of review is hereby DENIED.

With respect to the pending motions for summary judgment, which address the issue

of whether defendant abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits,

plaintiff argues that the Court should order the parties to rebrief the matter after plaintiff has

had an opportunity to conduct additional discovery. By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, the Court has referred plaintiff’s request for additional discovery to a Magistrate

Judge.

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s request that the parties be

ordered to rebrief the issue of whether defendant abused its discretion, until after the

assigned Magistrate Judge has ruled on plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04666-MMC Document 108 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2