Opinion
No. C 08-01607 JSW.
November 24, 2008
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ESTABLISH DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW
Now before the Court is plaintiffs Pamela Jackson and E. Lynn Schoenmann's (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion to establish de novo standard of adjudication. The Court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument and the hearing set for January 16, 2009 is HEREBY VACATED. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
This action arises from the denial of Plaintiffs' claim for benefits under the Long Term Disability Plan ("the Plan") through Prudential Insurance Company of American ("Prudential") provided by Ms. Jackson's employer, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich Rosati LLP. Plaintiff brought this action to challenge the termination of her claim for disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
Plaintiffs bring this motion to determine the appropriate standard of review for this Court to adjudicate the termination of benefits. ERISA allows a participant in an employee benefit scheme to bring a civil action to recover benefits due under the terms of a plan. Id. Courts review a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) "under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan." Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). Here, there is no dispute that the Plan confers no discretion on Prudential, the insurer, or on anyone else. Because there is no discretion vested in anyone in the Plan documents, ERISA defaults to a de novo standard of review. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 2348 (2008); Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that absent a discretionary clause, the default standard of review of a claims determination in an ERISA policy is de novo).
Prudential stipulated to the de novo standard of review in this case, but raises the specter of whether Plaintiffs may seek discovery. The Court finds that the issue of discovery is not properly before the Court at this time and therefore does not adjudicate the issue.