Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01059/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kory Dean Krieger, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

No. CV-11-1059-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Kory Krieger is a former employee of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. 

He suffered a panic attack at work on August 20, 2008, went on disability leave the next 

day, and began receiving benefits under an employee long-term disability income 

benefits plan on March 1, 2009. The benefits were terminated February 28, 2011. 

 Krieger filed suit against Nationwide three months later. Doc. 1. Counts one 

through three of the complaint assert ERISA claims for recovery of benefits, breach of 

fiduciary duty, and failure to provide an adequate summary plan description. Id.

¶¶ 15-20. Count four seeks injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement of benefits. Id.

¶¶ 21-24. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 16. Defendant has 

filed a response. Doc. 19. No reply has been filed. For reasons stated below, the motion 

will be denied.1

 

1

 Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been 

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 20 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed 

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 

interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 

The test includes a sliding scale. If Plaintiff shows that the balance of hardships will tip 

sharply in his favor, he need not make as strong a showing of the likelihood of success on 

the merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 The termination of benefits was wrongful, Plaintiff asserts, because it was based 

on an ambiguous, and narrowly construed, mental health limitation contained in the 

summary plan description. Doc. 16 at 2-4, 7. Defendant disputes that this was the reason 

for the termination of benefits. Doc. 19 at 2-5. As explained in a letter to Plaintiff dated 

May 18, 2011 (Doc. 19-3 at 9-10), Defendant claims to have terminated his benefits 

because he had exhausted the maximum benefits allowable under the plan regardless of 

the cause of his disability. Specifically, because Plaintiff’s long-term disability coverage 

had been in effect for only 16 months before he began receiving benefits, he was entitled 

to a maximum of 24 months of benefits under the plan. Doc. 19-2 at 42. Plaintiff does 

not challenge the applicability of this durational limitation. 

 Defendant argues, correctly, that Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Nor has he demonstrated the existence of serious questions, 

that is, “a fair chance of success on the merits.” Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 

862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Because Plaintiff has failed to 

show a likelihood of success on the merits or the existence of serious questions, the Court 

will not issue a preliminary injunction. The Court need not address the other 

requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and reinstatement of disability 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 20 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

benefits (Doc. 16) is denied. 

 2. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order.

 Dated this 25th day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 20 Filed 08/25/11 Page 3 of 3