Michael Ford v. Hartford Life

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL FORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
corporation; LONG TERM DISABILITY
PLAN OF BROWN AND SHARPE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56522
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-03665-GW-E
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 2, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In this ERISA action, Michael Ford appeals the district court’s judgment in
favor of the appellees, holding that defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
FILED
FEB 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Company (“Hartford”), the plan administrator, did not abuse its discretion in
terminating benefits under the Long Term Disability Plan of Brown & Sharpe
Manufacturing Company. While the case was pending in the district court, the
Supreme Court decided Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343
(2008). The district court called for supplemental briefs on the Supreme Court
decision, but then concluded that Glenn did not require an analysis that materially
differed from that which was appropriate under prior Ninth Circuit law with
respect to application of the abuse of discretion standard.
The district court, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening
opinion in Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 588 F.3d 623, 631-
32 (9th Cir. 2009), however, which held that MetLife — consistent with our en
banc decision in Abatie v. Alta Health and Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 966-69 (9th
Cir. 2006) (en banc) — overruled in relevant part a significant prior line of Ninth
Circuit cases applying the abuse of discretion standard of review, including Jordan
v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare Benefit Plan, 370 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2004)
and Bendixen v. Standard Insurance Co., 185 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 1999). While the
parties were asked to discuss Montour in oral argument, they were not able to brief
it to this court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because the district court relied on overruled articulations of the abuse of
discretion standard, and because neither this court nor the district court has had the
benefit of full briefing and study of the current state of this circuit’s law under
now-controlling Supreme Court and circuit authority, we reverse the judgment and
remand the case to the district court to apply that authority in the first instance.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --