Nolan

Nolan v. Heald College

Good Law
745 F. Supp. 2d 916·2010 WL 1837805·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97876
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 27, 2010C 05-3399 VRWCalifornia8,738 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

On May 6, 2010, Magistrate Judge Larson issued a report and recommendation (“report”) that the court grant plaintiffs motion for judgment on the administrative record and deny defendants’ cross-motion for judgment. Doc. # 120. Defendants filed a motion objecting to the report and requesting de novo review. Doc. # 121. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts in large part the recommendation of the magistrate and ORDERS entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff Jeanne Nolan.

I

A

The relevant facts have been set forth on many different occasions, and the court does not repeat them at length here. Nolan v. Heald College, 2007 WL 878946 , *1-*7 (N.D.Cal.2007) (Jenkins, J.) (“Nolan I”) (Doc. ##63, 74); Nolan v. Heald College, 551 F.3d 1148, 1150-53 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Nolan II”). Nolan brought an action alleging that MetLife violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) as an administrator of a long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits plan when it terminated Nolan’s LTD benefits in 2004. Nolan began receiving LTD benefits in 2002 after falling at work at Heald College and suffering a broken wrist and a compression fracture in her spine. In denying…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.