Jo Ann Feikes VS Cardiovascular Surgery Associates Profit Sharing Plan, Trust, etal

Filing 105

ORDER that Defendants identify the administrative record applicable to this case within 15 days of this order. Defendants may either direct the court to a previously filed copy or refile as necessary. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 10/20/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Download PDF
Jo Ann Feikes VS Cardiovascular Surgery Associates Profit Sharing Plan, Trust, etal Doc. 105 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This case involves a dispute whether defendants improperly handled and distributed plaintiff's share of a profit sharing plan, and whether yearly distributions to plaintiff should have been timed to reflect plan earnings and losses during such years. Plaintiff and defendants have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and numerous supplemental briefs. The parties extensively argue the appropriate standard of review of the actions of the plan. Plaintiff argues that, among other things, the absence of an administrative record warrants de novo review. Defendants, however, "[disagree] with Plaintiff and [assert] that there is in fact an administrative record applicable to this case." Defs.' Reply Showing That De Novo Review is Not Appropriate Under the Circumstances of This Case 13 n.11, July 29, 2009, ECF. No. 103. The court has unsuccessfully searched the voluminous filings for documents designated as the administrative record. The administrative record is necessary to determine the standard of review applicable to a plan's actions. See, e.g., Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 970 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The district court may, in its discretion, consider evidence outside the administrative record to v. ORDER CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY ASSOCIATES PROFIT SHARING PLAN, TRUST, et al., Defendants. JO ANN FEIKES, Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1724-LDG-GWF Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 decide the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making process of any conflict of interest; the decision on the merits, though, must rest on the administrative record once the conflict (if any) has been established, by extrinsic evidence or otherwise."). The administrative record is also central to a court's analysis of an administrator's actions under either standard of review. See id. ("[A] district court may review only the administrative record when considering whether the plan administrator abused its discretion . . . ."); Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) ("If a court reviews the administrator's decision, whether de novo as here, or for abuse of discretion, the record that was before the administrator furnishes the primary basis for review."). Thus, an administrative record composed of "the evidence that was before the plan administrator at the time of determination" is essential to this court's analysis of the case. Opeta v. Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees, 484 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2007). The Defendants shall, therefore, clarify the scope of such "determination" and identify the corresponding administrative record. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS Defendants to identify the administrative record applicable to this case within fifteen (15) days of this Order. Defendants may either direct the court to a previously filed copy of the administrative record or refile the administrative record as necessary. DATED this _____ day of October, 2010. ______________________________ Lloyd D. George United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?