Kandice Gray v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KANDICE GRAY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-MCS-PLA 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT AND 12

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13 v.

14

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE

15 INSURANCE COMPANY,

16 Defendant. 17 18 19 This is an action for recovery of benefits under a disability plan governed by the 20 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et 21 seq. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) The parties agreed to present the case on cross- 22 motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. (Joint Scheduling Conference Report 23 5, ECF No. 15.) Briefing is complete. (Def.’s Opening Br., ECF No. 24; Pl.’s Opening 24 Br., ECF No. 27; Def.’s Resp. Br., ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Resp. Br., ECF No. 30.) The Court 25 heard oral argument on November 6, 2023. (Mins., ECF No. 33.) 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “In an action tried on the facts without a jury . . . , the court must find the facts 28 specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and 1 conclusions . . . may appear in an opinion or a…