Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01782-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

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

NANCY HYDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEMPER NATIONAL SERVICES, INC.;

LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.;

BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.; VODAFONE

AMERICAS, INC.; VODAFONE AMERICAS,

INC., SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN;

VODAFONE AMERICAS, INC., LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE

HEALTH PLAN; VODAFONE EMPLOYEE DENTAL

PLAN; VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; and

DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1782 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO ENTER

JUDGMENT

On June 30, 2006, the Court issued an order granting

Plaintiff's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 for

adjudication of her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

claim against Defendants Kemper National Services, Inc. (Kemper);

Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Co. (Lumberman's); Broadspire

Services, Inc. (Broadspire); Vodafone Americas, Inc., Long Term

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 71 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

1

For a complete overview of the facts of this case, see the

Court's June 30, 2006 order.

2

Disability Plan (the LTD Plan); and Vodafone Americas, Inc., Short

Term Disability Plan (the STD Plan) (collectively the Disability

Plan Defendants).1 On October 11, 2006, the Court issued an order

determining the amount of back benefits and pre-judgment interest

on Plaintiff's ERISA claim against the Disability Plan Defendants. 

On December 28, 2006, the Court issued an order granting

Plaintiff's unopposed motion to modify the order adjudicating the

ERISA claim and denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for

entry of partial judgment because Plaintiff's fourth and fifth

causes of action had not yet been adjudicated.

The parties have settled those claims, and Plaintiff again

moves for entry of judgment. The Disability Plan Defendants do not

oppose entry of judgment, but object to the fifth paragraph of

Plaintiff's proposed judgment, which provides, 

Plaintiff is entitled to prospective long-term disability

benefits, from and after the date of this judgment, at the

rate of $5,597.84 per month, until such time as her

entitlement to such benefits shall change or terminate

pursuant to the terms of the Vodafone long term disability

plan.

Disability Plan Defendants object to this provision on three

grounds, none of which are well taken. First, they argue that the

Court's opinion adjudicating Plaintiff's ERISA claim never

mentioned prospective benefits. However, the order specifically

found that Plaintiff "is entitled to receive LTD [long-term

disability] benefits." June 30, 2006 Order at 26. 

Next, Disability Plan Defendants argue that a prospective

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 71 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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 3

award is premature because Plaintiff's future condition is unknown. 

Finally, Disability Plan Defendants argue that a prospective award

would violate the terms of the plan, which only allows benefits if

the participant is eligible under the terms of the plan. However,

the terms of the proposed judgment address that concern by allowing

prospective benefits only "until such time as her entitlement to

such benefits shall change or terminate pursuant to the terms of

the Vodafone long term disability plan." 

For the foregoing reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion

for entry of judgment. Judgment shall enter accordingly. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/18/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01782-CW Document 71 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3