Mizzell

MEMORANDUM **

Terry Mizzell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford Life Insurance Co. on Mizzell’s action for recovery of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq. (“ERISA”). Hartford cross-appeals the district court’s denial of Hartford’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g), the fee provision under ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm both decisions.

In support of his argument that the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment in favor of Hartford, Mizzell argues in part (1) that Hartford failed to *256 comply with ERISA’s procedural requirements; (2) that Hartford did not meet its burden of showing that the plan unambiguously confers discretion upon the plan administrator; and (3) that material probative evidence demonstrated an actual conflict of interest. In addition, Mizzell has filed several Requests for Judicial Notice on Appeal under Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) asking us to take notice of various documents relating to the California Department of Insurance’s recent opinion letter and notice of revocation of approval of…