Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455-7/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAMTA PATEL-PURI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-0455 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 39)

Before the Court is plaintiff Mamta Patel-Puri’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s March 17, 2006 order (“March 17 order”) denying plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, with respect to the

standard of review in this ERISA disability benefits action. Defendants Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company (“MetLife”), Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) and Kaiser

Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan (“Plan”) have filed opposition to the

motion; plaintiff has filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral

argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the June 2, 2006 hearing, and rules as

follows.

The Court granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration solely because the

March 17 order contained citations to Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 1053

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 48 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 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

2

(9th Cir. 2005), which the Ninth Circuit, after plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was

filed but before the Court’s order was issued, had agreed to rehear en banc. See Abatie v.

Alta Health & Life Insurance Co., 437 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2006). For the reasons set forth

below, the Court’s citation to Abatie does not require reconsideration of the findings set

forth in the Court’s March 17 order.

The Court initially cited Abatie as one of three cases supporting the general

proposition that courts, in determining whether a plan fiduciary’s apparent conflict of

interest affected its denial of a claim, focus on the manner in which the plan fiduciary

processed that claim. (See March 17, 2006 Order at 8.) Because the other two cases

cited also support that proposition, which, in any event, is hardly controversial, the Court’s

citation to Abatie as an additional example had no material effect on the Court’s decision.

The next citation to Abatie appears in connection with the Court’s consideration of

the reasons provided by defendants for the denial of plaintiff’s claim. (See March 17, 2006

at 9-10.) In particular, the Court cited Abatie’s observation that the Ninth Circuit has never

held “‘that an ERISA administrator’s assertion of a supplemental reason for denying a claim

subsequent to the initial denial is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a plan

administrator has breached its fiduciary duties to the beneficiary.’” (See id. at 10 (quoting

Abatie, 421 F.3d at 1061).) Plaintiff has cited no authority demonstrating this statement

mischaracterizes Ninth Circuit jurisprudence.

Lastly, the Court, after noting it was “aware of no authority requiring an ERISA

defendant to evaluate medical evidence of disability where such evidence is not relevant to

the grounds for denial of the claim,” cited Abatie, specifically, a statement therein that a

plan fiduciary’s “‘failure to discuss non-probative evidence does not constitute material,

probative evidence that the fiduciary’s self-interest has led to a breach of its fiduciary

obligations.’” (See March 17 order at 11 (quoting Abatie, 421 F.3d at 1062).) Plaintiff has

pointed to no authority suggesting to the contrary.

Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for reconsideration of the

Court’s March 17 order, and her motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 48 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 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

3

The Court will, however, amend the order to delete all references to Abatie.

This order terminates Docket No. 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 48 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3