Case Name: IN RE: Avery ARMANI, Avery Armani, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, Respondent, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance CompanY, Real Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-08
Citations: 690 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 17-70244
Parties: IN RE: Avery ARMANI, Avery Armani, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, Respondent, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance CompanY, Real Party in Interest.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
IN RE: Avery ARMANI, Avery Armani, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, Respondent, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance CompanY, Real Party in Interest.
No. 17-70244
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed May 8, 2017
Charles Fleishman, Attorney, Paul Fle-ishman, The Fleishman Law Firm, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner
Charles Kelechi Chineduh, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Real Party in Interest Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Before: D.W. NELSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation..

Opinion:
ORDER
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. We vacate the district court's January 26, 2017 order and direct the district court to enter judgment for the petitioner awarding him payment of his long-term disability benefits, interest, attorney fees, and costs, and reinstatement of the long-term disability policy.
The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court.
PETITION GRANTED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.