Mull

Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan

Bad Law
51 F. Supp. 3d 910·2014 WL 4854548
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2014Case No. LA CV 12-06693-VBFCalifornia5,838 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fairbank, J.

Opinion & Order

(1) Granting the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiffs Norman, Danielle, & Carson Mull on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”);

(2) Denying the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication on the FAC;

(3)Directing the Moving Plaintiffs to File an Amended Proposed Order No Later than Monday, October 13, 2014

This is an action under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of *912 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., as amended (“ERISA”). The defendants are the Motion Picture Industry (“MPI”) Health Plan and the Board of Trustees of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan (together “the plan”). Plaintiffs Norman Mull, Danielle Mull, and Carson Mull have moved for summary judgment on the FAC, and the defendants have moved for summary judgment on the FAC as well. As to plaintiffs’ motion, the Court has considered the plaintiffs’ opening brief (Document (“Doc”) 56 and the accompanying declarations of plaintiff Danielle Mull and plaintiffs’ counsel (Docs 57-58), plaintiffs’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law (Doe. 59), plaintiffs’ exhibits (Docs 60-1 through 60-7), the defendants’ opposition brief…

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.