Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00227-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan G. McAfee
Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Peoplesoft Incorporated Long-Term Disability Plan
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RYAN G. McAFEE,

NO. CIV. S-05-0227 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY and PEOPLESOFT

INCORPORATED LONG-TERM

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Trial of the above-titled matter is currently set to

commence before this court on April 28, 2008, at 2 p.m. In its

previous order granting plaintiff Ryan McAfee’s motion for

summary adjudication, the court found that plaintiff’s

performance-based stock options should be considered

“predisability earnings” and therefore factor into defendant

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) calculation of

plaintiff’s monthly disability benefits. At trial, the court

must decide whether Metlife’s subsequent discretionary

Case 2:05-cv-00227-WBS -KJM Document 87 Filed 04/18/08 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

determination of the value of the stock options was reasonable. 

On April 8, 2008, the parties jointly submitted a

memorandum informing the court of a case from the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals--also involving Metlife--that is pending before

the United States Supreme Court. Specifically, on April 23,

2008, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in MetLife

(Metro. Life Ins. Co.) v. Glenn, No. 06-923, with respect to the

following question:

If an administrator that both determines and pays claims

under an [employment benefit plan governed by the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461] is deemed to be operating under a

conflict of interest, how should that conflict be taken

into account on judicial review of a discretionary

benefit determination?

128 S.Ct 1117 (granting writ of certiorari). 

Because the Supreme Court is set to address (1) whether

MetLife’s dual-function as claim evaluator and subsequent benefit

distributor establishes an inherent conflict of interest and (2)

how much a finding to this effect bears on a court’s subsequent

abuse of discretion review, resolution of this appeal is

substantially likely to affect and/or provide guidance on the

issue to be decided in the trial of this case. See United States

v. Padilla, 387 F.3d 1087, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The district

court may wait for guidance from the Supreme Court in its pending

case[].”) 

Accordingly the April 28, 2008 trial date is hereby

VACATED pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn, supra, and

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00227-WBS -KJM Document 87 Filed 04/18/08 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

this matter is set for Status Conference on September 8, 2008, at

2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2008

Case 2:05-cv-00227-WBS -KJM Document 87 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 3