Dine

MEMORANDUM **

Kathy Dine appeals the district court’s order granting Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) summary judgment as to claims arising from its denial of benefits to Dine under a long term disability plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court with regard to Dine’s claims raised under California law, although on different grounds, and remand to the district court for reconsideration under Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). Because the parties are aware of the facts in this case, we recount them only as necessary.

The district court properly held that the California Department of Insurance’s Notice of Withdrawal of Approval and Order for Information dated February 27, 2004 (the “CDI Notice”) does not compel de novo review of MetLife’s decision. Dine argues that the CDI Notice retroactively renders unenforceable the clause in the plan that grants MetLife discretion over benefits decisions. This court recently rejected the same argument in Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 511 F.3d 1206 (9th…