Martinez v. Beverly Hills Hotel & Bungalows Employee Benefit Trust Employee Welfare Plan

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA MARTINEZ, No. 10-56370
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01222-SVW-
Appellant, PLA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL AND
BUNGALOWS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
TRUST EMPLOYEE WELFARE PLAN,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee,
U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware corporation,
DBA U.S. Bank as trustee of the Steve
Martinez Special Needs Trust,
Counter-defendant -
Appellee.
ANA MARTINEZ, No. 11-57221
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02304-SVW-
PLA
v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
THE BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL AND
BUNGALOWS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
TRUST EMPLOYEE WELFARE PLAN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 5, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM,
Senior District Judge.**
Ana Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying attorney’s fees
in Case No. 2:09-cv-01222-SVW-PLA (Martinez I) and the court’s order
upholding Defendant The Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows Employee Benefit
Trust Employee Welfare Plan’s (the Plan administrator) decision to deny her
benefits in Case No. 2:11-cv-02304-SVW-PLA (Martinez II). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.
As an initial matter, Martinez’s decision not to immediately appeal the
district court’s decision to remand in Martinez I does not waive her present
**
The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Senior District Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
challenge. That order was not appealable at the time. Banuelos v. Constr.
Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Cal., 382 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court abused its discretion by remanding the matter to the Plan
administrator after correctly ruling that the Plan’s reasons for denying benefits
were invalid. No factual determinations remained to be made; the administrator
simply erred in denying Martinez benefits. The proper remedy under the
circumstances was to order the payment of benefits then and there. Canseco v.
Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 93 F.3d 600, 609 (9th Cir. 1996). We
reverse and remand with directions to order the payment of benefits.
As for Martinez’s application for attorney’s fees, she is now clearly the
prevailing party. We reverse and remand to the district court for consideration of
her application. See Hardt v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.