N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ISALINDA PEREZ–JONES, Plaintiff–Appe lla nt, v. LIB E R TY LIFE ASSUR ANC E C OM PANY OF B OSTON a nd GOLDEN W EST FINANC IAL C ORPOR ATION EM PLOYEE B ENEFIT PLAN, De fe nda

nts–Appe lle e s. No. 14-55455 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-09518-JAKAJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, C LIFTON, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED APR 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. Se e Fe d. R
. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1Isa linda Pe re z –Jone s brought this suit, unde r the Em p loy e e R e tire m e nt Inc o m e Se c urity

Ac t of 1974 (“ ER ISA” ), c ha l le nging Liberty Life Assura

nc e C om pa ny of B oston’ s (“ Libe rty

Life ” ) disc ontinua

tion of he r long-te rm -disa bility be ne fits. Se e 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a)(1). Afte r a be n c h tria l , the distric t

c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt for Libe rty

Life and the long-te rm -disa bility pla n, finding tha

t Pe re z–Jone s knowingly

and volunta

rily wa ive d he r right to re c e ive long-te rm disa bility be ne fits by

signing a se v e ran c e a gre e m e nt a

n d a c c e pting a

se ve ranc e pa c ka ge provide d by

he r the n-e m

ploy e r, whic h sponsore d the long-te rm -disa bility pla n . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in finding tha t the wa ive r provision in the se ve ranc e a gre e m e nt c o v e rs Pe re z–Jone s’ s c la im . The se ve ranc e a gre e m e nt wa ive s only c la im s Pe re z–Jone s ha d “ up until the da y [she ] sign[e d] ” the se ve ra nc e a gre e m e nt, not futurec la im s . Although Pe re z–Jone s ha d pre v iously

re c e ive dlongte rm -disa bility be ne fits, sheha d re turne d to work a

n d wa s no longe r re c e i ving suc h be ne fits whe n she signe d

the se ve ranc e a gre e m e nt. She thus ha d no c la im to furthe r long-te rm -disa

bility be ne fits a

nd no ER ISA c l a im

to wa ive
. C

f. W e t ze l v . Lou Ehle rs C adillac Group Long Te rm Disability Ins. Program , 222 F.3d 643, 649 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba

nc ) (“ [U] nde r fe de ra l la

w, a n ERISA c a

use of a c tion a c c rue s e ithe r at the tim e be ne fits a re a c tua lly

de nie d, or whe n the insure d ha s re a son to 2know tha

t the c la im

ha s be e n de nie d.” (c i tation omitte d)); Smart v . Gille tte C o. Long-Te rm Disability

Plan , 70 F.3d 173, 181 (1st C ir. 1995) (“ T h at a gre e m e nt c ould not ha

ve wa ive d he r right to pa

rtic i pate in the Pla

n during these v e ranc e pe riod be c a

use she ha d no suc h right . . . . [O] ne c an sc arc e ly re le a se c la im s tha

t one doe s not posse ss.” ). 2. W e none the l e ss a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision be c a use Pe re z–Jone s is not a “ pa rtic ipa nt” in the long-te rm -disa

bility pla n e ntitle d to bring a

n ERISA c la im
. Se e 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a)(1), (e ). “ Partic ipa nts” inc lude only

“ e m ploy e e s in, or re a sona

bly e xpe c te d to be in, c urre ntly c ove re d e m

p l oym e nt, or form e r e m ploy e e s who ha

ve . . . a re a sona b le e xpe c tation of re turning to c ove re d e m ploy m e nt or who ha

ve a c olora

ble c la im to ve ste d be ne fits.” Fire

stone Tire& Rubbe r C o. v . Bruc h , 489 U.S. 101, 117–18 (1989) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). The re is no dispute tha t Pe re z–Jone s no longe r worke d for the long-te rm -disa

bility pla n’ s sponsor a

t the tim e she sought long-te rm disa bility be ne fits be c a

use she ha d a lre a dy

signe d a se ve ranc e a gre e m e nt a

nd te rm inate d he r e m

ploy m e nt. He r c ove ra g e unde r the long-te rm -disa bility pla n te rm inate d with he r e m

ploy m e nt; she wa s not a

“ C ove re d

Pe rson” unde r the te rm s of the pla n e ntitle d to c la im

be ne fits. Se e

, e .g. , Le e son v . Transame ric a Disability

3Inc o mePlan , 671 F.3d 969, 971–79 (9th C ir. 2012); Mille r v . Rite Aid C orp. , 504 F.3d 1102, 1107–08 (9th C i r. 2007). That Pe re z–Jone s pre v iously re c e ive d long-te rm -disa

bility be ne fits doe s not m ake he r a

“ pa rtic ipa nt” in the long-te rm -disa

b ility pla n . Pe re z–Jone s points to provisions of the

pla n spe c ify ing tha

t “ insura nc e will bec o ntinue d for a n Em ploy e e a bse nt due to Disa

bility during . . . the pe riod during whic h pre m ium is be ing wa ive d,” and pre m ium s a re wa ive d “ during a

ny pe riod for whic h be ne fits a re pa y a b le .” Howe v e r, at the tim e Pe re z–Jone s file d he r long-te rm -disa bility c la im , she wa s ne ithe r a

bse nt from

e m ploy m e nt due to disa

bility nor re c e iving long-term disa bility be ne fits; she ha d

to re turn to work from

disa bility sta tus to re c e i ve a se ve ranc e pa c ka g e , he r doc t or ha d c le are d he r to re turn to work, a nd she did re turn to work. Nor doe s the long-te rm -disa b ility pla n’ s provision for “ suc c e ssive pe riods of disa bility ” give Pe re z–Jone s a c la im to ve ste d be ne fits: Tha

t provision e xte nds only to “ C ove re d Pe rsons,” and she wa s no longe r a “ C ove re d Pe rson” a fte r she te rm inate d he r e m

ploy m e nt. Pe re z–Jone s a l so is not a

“ pa rtic ipa nt” in the long-te rm -disa

bility pla n by virtue of he r m isunde rsta

nding of thepla

n’ s te rm s, e ve n if Libe rty Life or he r the ne m ploy e r m isinform e d he r a s to thee ffe c t of the se ve ra

nc e a gre e m e nt on he r a bility to c la im long-te rm -disa

b ility be ne fits. An ER

ISA pla n is gove rne d by

its 4writte n

te rm s, a nd the long-te rm -disa

b ility pla n doe s not c ove r those who ha ve te rm inate d the ir e m

p loy m e nt with the

pla n’ s sponsor. Se eGabrie l v . Alask a Ele c . Pe nsion Fund

, 773 F.3d 945, 951–61 (9th C ir. 2014); se ealso K e nne d y v . Plan Adm’r for DuPont Sav

. & Inv . Plan , 555 U.S. 285, 300 (2009). AFFIRM E D.

5No. 14-55455 , Pe re z-J one s v . Libe rty

LifeAssuranc eC

o . e t al. C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge , c o nc urring in thejudgm e nt: I a gre e tha

t the judgm e nt of the distric t c o urt should be a ffirm e d , for the re a s ons sta

te d by the distric t c ourt, a

nd c o nc ur in the judgm e nt. 

# FIL ED APR 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS