Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

AMARA v. CIGNA CORP., 348 Fed.Appx. 627 (2nd Cir. 2009)

348 Fed.Appx. 627

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-10-06
Topic
general

AMARA v. CIGNA CORP., 348 Fed.Appx. 627 (2nd Cir. 2009) Janice C. AMARA, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individuallyand on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed AMARA v. CIGNA CORP., 348 Fed.Appx. 627 (2nd Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

AMARA v. CIGNA CORP.,348 Fed.Appx. 627(2nd Cir. 2009)
Janice C. AMARA, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Cigna
Pension Plan, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 08-3388-cv (L), 08-3460-cv (XAP).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 6, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.).UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANDDECREEDthat the judgment of the district court beAFFIRMED.
Stephen R. Bruce, Allison C. Pienta, Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices, Washington, D.C.; Thomas G. Moukawsher, Moukawsher Walsh, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.

Joseph J. Costello, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Jamie M. Kohen, Morgan, Lewis, Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

In this ERISA appeal, the parties cross-appeal from two decisions of the district court. Plaintiffs-appellants argue that the district court erred in:
1) concluding that it lacked the authority to provide complete relief for defendants-appellees' ERISA violations;
2) failing to require prior benefit provisions to be reinstated until proper notice of reductions was provided;
3) failing to require CIGNA to pay comparable benefits to affected participants until proper notice was provided; and
4) ruling that CIGNA did not need to disclose the amendment to the "Rehire Rule."


Defendants-appellees cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred by awarding plaintiffs-appellants more pension benefits than they were told they would receive under the pension plan. They also contend that the district court properly denied plaintiffs-appellants' request for additional annual benefit accruals.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Kravitz's two well-reasoned and scholarly opinions. SeeAmara v. CIGNA Corp.,559 F.Supp.2d 192(D.Conn. 2008);Amara v. Cigna Corp.,534 F.Supp.2d 288(D.Conn. 2008).

Based on the foregoing reasons, we herebyAFFIRMthe judgment of the district court.Page 628
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩