N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELIZAB ETH L.; e t a l .,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. AETNA LIFE INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15893 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-02554-SC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Sam ue l C onti, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 17, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SEAB RIGHT, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
APR 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble J. M ic ha e l Se a

bright, Unite d State s C hie f Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion.Eliz a

be th L. e t a l., individua

lly and a s re pre se ntative s of the c la ss of sim ila rly situa te d individuals (“ Appe lla

nts” ), a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Ae tna

Life Insura

nc e C om pa ny (“ A e tna ” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Appe lla nts a sse rte d two distinc t

c a u se s of a c tion, c la im ing tha t Ae tna (1) im prope rly de nie d Ap pe lla

nts be ne fits unde r the te rm s of the pla ns, a nd (2) bre a c he d its fiduc ia

ry duty by inc onsiste ntly a

pply ing the te rm s of the pla ns to sim ila rly situa te d pla n pa rtic ipa nts. The distric t c ourt dismi sse d the first c a

use of
a c tion with pre

judic e , holding tha

t Appe lla nts fa ile d to de m onstra

te e ntitle m e nt to be ne fits unde r the pla

ns. The distric t c ourt the n sua sponte dism i sse d the e ntire
c a se with pre

judic e a s a

sa nc tion for Appe l la

nts’ fa ilure to c om

ply with thec ourt’ s prior orde rs, without re a c hing them e rits of Appe lla n ts’ se c ond c a

use of a c tion for bre a c h of fiduc ia

ry duty
. W ith re spe c t to thefirst c a use of a c tion, the distric t

c o urt c orre c tly

he ld tha t the p la in m e aning of thepla ns fore c lose d Appe lla

nts’ inte rpre tation tha

t c e rta in fa c i litie s the m se lve s c an c onstitute B e haviora l He a lth Provide rs for purpose s of
satisfy ing the pla

ns’ 24/7 c are re quire m e nts. B e c a use those fa c ilitie s do not ha ve lic e nse d c linic a l profe ssiona ls on-site on a 24/7 ba sis, Appe lla nts fa i le d to sta

te a

2c la im

for be ne fits unde r the pla ns. 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a )(1)(B ); Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). W ith re spe c t to these c ond c a use of a c t ion, whic h the distric t c o urt did not
re a c h on the m e rits, Appe lla nts fa ile d to a ddre ss in the ir ope ning brie f whe the r the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion in dism issing the c a s e a s a sa

n c t ion for Appe l la n ts’ re pe ate d viola

tions of thec ourt’ s prior orde rs. “ W e ge n e ra lly do not
c onside r issue s tha

t a re not ra i se d in the a

ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f,” Brow n v . Raw son-N e al Psy c hiatric

Hosp. , 840 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we de c line to e xe rc ise our disc re tion to do so he re . W e the re fore find this issue
wa ive d. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not ad dre ss the m e rits of Appe lla nts’ se c ond
c a use of a c tion, thec la im

for bre a c h of fiduc ia

ry duty is not properly

be fore us. AFFIRM E D.

3