Bell v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

dissenting.

I disagree with each of the majority’s alternative rationales for reversal of the district court and thus respectfully dissent.

In my view, the previous panel’s memorandum disposition did not resolve the question decided below. Although the panel determined that Bell’s letters “viewed in context, reasonably could be interpreted as ... requests for information,” Bell v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 211 F.3d 1272 (9th2000) (emphasis added), “could be” does not mean “were.” The panel reversed a summary judgment on that issue in favor of Hawaiian Airlines, but it did not say that summary judgment should have been entered for Bell. Indeed, rather than make the determination made here — that is, that Hawaiian Airlines in fact interpreted or should have interpreted the letters as requests for information, ante at---the previous panel remanded the question to the district court, which, as factfinder, would be better able to interpret the letters “in context.” Bell, 211 F.3d 1272 . If the panel had intended, as the majority suggests here, to provide a binding interpretation of the letters and thus to narrow the issues before the district court on remand, “it could easily have…

MEMORANDUM *

Alexander Bell appeals the district court judgment, following a bench trial, dismissing his ERISA penalty claim against Hawaiian Airlines. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

A.

The district court erred by failing to follow the law of the case when it considered the question whether Bell’s letters to Hawaiian Airlines were “requests for information,” for the purposes of ERISA reporting requirements, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1025 (a). We “review[ ] de novo a district court’s compliance with the mandate of an appellate court.” United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir.2000). A previous panel of this court found that the letters were “requests for information,” stating in a March 8, 2000 memorandum disposition that “[ajlthough it is true that ‘[a] demand for benefits is not a written request’ for information, these two letters, viewed in context, reasonably could be interpreted as both requests for information and demands for benefits.” The panel then affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on a different issue, and reversed and remanded. “Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, a court is…