![]() ![]() Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1996).ĮRISA permits a participant in an ERISA-regulated plan to bring a civil action "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan." 29 U.S.C. Where a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court should provide leave to amend unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. However, a court may consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint and matters which may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. at 304 ( citing Western Mining Council v. "However, a court need not accept as true unreasonable Inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations." Summit Technology, 922 F.Supp. In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint and must construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. High-Line Medical Instruments Co., Inc., 922 F.Supp. Accordingly, " Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only where there is either a `lack of a cognizable legal theory' or `the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.'" Summit Technology, Inc. Ī motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Instead, on December 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action, which alleges that Defendants wrongfully denied his claim for disability benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Although the Plan provides for a multi-level appeals process with independent review at each level, Plaintiff never appealed the denial of his claim. On February 20, 2002, a representative of Kemper notified Plaintiff in a letter that his claim was denied as untimely. Plaintiff also informed Kemper that "his disability was caused by chest pain, numbness to the left leg and arm and that his doctors were still evaluating his cervical problems." Id. Plaintiff alleges that when he was asked by Kemper if his disability was work-related, he replied that he did not know, and further advised that he had not yet filed a worker's compensation claim. On February 8, 2002, over five months after Plaintiff became disabled, Plaintiff telephoned Kemper National Services ("Kemper"), claims administrator for the Plan, and reported his disability claim. Eventually, Plaintiff's doctor recommended that he cease working, which he did on September 5, 2001. These symptoms worsened over time, hindering Plaintiff's ability to perform his job duties. In September 2000, Plaintiff began suffering back pain, neck pain and numbness in his hands. As a UPS employee, Plaintiff was covered by UPS' Health and Welfare Package (the "Plan"), which provided Plaintiff with short-term and long-term disability insurance, among other benefits. ![]() ![]() Plaintiff was employed by Defendant United Parcel Service of America, Inc. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows: The hearing calendared for is hereby vacated, and the matter taken off calendar. On April 25, 2005, Defendants filed a Reply, Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. On April 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion"). On April 6, 2005, Defendants The UPS Health and Welfare Package and United Parcel Service of America, Inc. *933 PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) The UPS HEALTH AND WELFARE PACKAGE, et al. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |