Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00130/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00130-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Barnett
Plaintiff
Southern California Edison Company 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BARNETT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00130-LJO-SAB

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

Based on the Court’s review of the joint pretrial statement, the Court makes the following 

determinations:

1. Mr. Barnett’s first cause of action was decided on summary judgment. Thus, Mr. Barnett’s

first cause of action is not part of the trial.

2. In Mr. Barnett’s second cause action, the Court must determine whether the Plan

abused its discretion when it terminated Mr. Barnett’s long term disability benefits. The parties 

disagree as to whether the Court must limit itself to the administrative record or may consider evidence 

outside the administrative record. Mr. Barnett argues that the Plan had a conflict of interest which 

constitutes a procedural irregularity and when procedural irregularities are present the Court may 

consider evidence outside the administrative record. Mr. Barnett fails to provide substantive details on 

the alleged conflict of interest. Being this close to trial, the Court will not entertain Mr. Barnett’s 

procedural irregularity argument. Therefore, the Court limits its review to the administrative record.

3. The Court dismisses Mr. Barnett’s third cause of action because an adequate remedy exists 

under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1). In Varity Corp., the Supreme Court determined that 29 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:12-cv-00130-LJO-SAB Document 38 Filed 07/08/13 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

1132(a)(3) is a “catchall” which provides relief only for injuries that are not otherwise adequately 

provided for. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 512 (1996). In Mr. Barnett’s second and third 

causes of action, he essentially requests a full and fair review of his claim. Thus, this Court finds that 

Mr. Barnett’s §1132(a)(3) claim is nothing more than a repackaged § 1132(a)(1) denial of benefits 

claim, i.e., Mr. Barnett’s third cause of action is a repackaged version of his second cause of action. 

Therefore, an adequate remedy exists under § 1132(a)(1). 

Mr. Barnett’s allegation that the Plan and Sedgwick “routinely deny participants, such as 

Plaintiff, full and fair claims processes and appeals” (Doc. 1, p. 22:1-3) does not overcome this Court’s 

determination that his § 1132(a)(3) claim is a repackaged § 1132(a)(1) claim because Mr. Barnett has 

not produced any evidence or argument that the Plan denied anyone else a full and fair claims process

or appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Barnett’s third cause of action is DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:12-cv-00130-LJO-SAB Document 38 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 2