William Goodes v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co

Good Law
598 F. App'x 516
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 201513-16027California667 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The facts and procedural posture of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Appellants William and Diana Goodes appeal the district court’s grant of Appellee Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (PG & E) motion for summary judgment. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1144-45 (9th Cir.2011). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The Goodeses brought this complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and claimed that PG & E miscalculated Mr. Goodes’s long-term disability benefits and thereby breached its fiduciary duty. California’s four-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts “provides the applicable statute of limitations for an ERISA cause of action based on a claim for benefits under a written contractual policy in California.” Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Grp. Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 648 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (citing Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 337). In this case, the ERISA statute of limitations for claims based on a breach of fiduciary duty is “three years after the earliest date on…

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.