Case Name: Janice C. AMARA, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Cigna Pension Plan, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-06
Citations: 348 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: Nos. 08-3388-cv (L), 08-3460-cv (XAP)
Parties: Janice C. AMARA, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Cigna Pension Plan, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
Janice C. AMARA, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Cigna Pension Plan, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 08-3388-cv (L), 08-3460-cv (XAP).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 6, 2009.
Stephen R. Bruce, Allison C. Pienta, Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices, Washington, D.C.; Thomas G. Moukawsher, Mou-kawsher & Walsh, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph J. Costello, Jeremy P. Blumen-feld, Jamie M. Kohen, Morgan, Lewis, & Boekius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
In this ERISA appeal, the parties cross-appeal from two decisions of the district court. Plaintiffs-appellants argue that the district court erred in:
1) concluding that it lacked the authority to provide complete relief for defendants-appellees' ERISA violations;
2) failing to require prior benefit provisions to be reinstated until proper notice of reductions was provided;
3) failing to require CIGNA to pay comparable benefits to affected participants until proper notice was provided; and
4) ruling that CIGNA did not need to disclose the amendment to the "Rehire Rule."
Defendants-appellees cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred by awarding plaintiffs-appellants more pension benefits than they were told they would receive under the pension plan. They also contend that the district court properly denied plaintiffs-appellants' request for additional annual benefit accruals.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Kravitz's two well-reasoned and scholarly opinions. See Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 559 F.Supp.2d 192 (D.Conn.2008); Amara v. Cigna Corp., 534 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Conn.2008).
Based on the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.