Jackson v. Adforce, LLC

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Rex Jackson brought suit to recover severance benefits allegedly owed to him under the terms of a Retention and Severance Plan entered into with his employer, Defendant-Appellee Ad-Force, LLC, in anticipation of a merger with CMGI, also a Defendant-Appellee. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, they are not recited here. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We reverse on the ground that there appears to be a genuine issue of material fact.

Jackson alleges that the district court erred in considering evidence provid *134 ed by Defendants that had not been included in the “administrative record.” The district court’s decision to consider evidence beyond the administrative record is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kearney v. Standard Insurance Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 964 , 120 S.Ct. 398 , 145 L.Ed.2d 310 (1999). The district court is afforded wide discretion in determining whether it should consider evidence beyond the administrative record. See Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term, Disability Plan, 46 F.3d 938 ,…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Summary judgment is appropriate when the parties disagree solely about the interpretation of the contract terms. Continental Ins. Co. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 107 F.3d 1344, *135 1346 (9th Cir.1997). In this case, the district court faced neither allegations of ambiguity nor the possibility that additional evidence would assist contract interpretation. As the district court quite properly noted, the parties agreed that “the relevant Clause in the Plan, which is in dispute, is unambiguous and should be construed as a matter of law.”

Of course, each party urges a different interpretation of the contract. However, that neither proves the clause ambiguous, nor does it create a genuine issue of material fact. The resolution of this case depends entirely on the application of law to the undisputed facts. On that question, I agree entirely with the analysis contained in the district court’s well reasoned opinion.

I would affirm the judgment of the district court.