KIP SIDES V. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., No. 19-15830 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 3 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KIP SIDES, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15830 D.C. No. 4:15-cv-03893-HSG MEMORANDUM* CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 1, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: OWENS, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Kip Sides appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo a district court’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). choice and application of the standard of review to decisions by fiduciaries in ERISA cases,” and “for clear error the underlying findings of fact.” Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Where a plan confers discretionary authority to the administrator to determine eligibility for benefits, the court reviews its decision whether to grant benefits for abuse of discretion rather than de novo. Id. at 959, 963. We affirm. The district court properly reviewed defendant UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company’s (UH) claim decisions for an abuse of discretion because the benefit plan vested UH with discretion to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe terms of the plan. Id. at 963. The district court thus appropriately limited its review to the administrative record compiled by UH. Id. at 970. The district court properly awarded judgment to UH and Cisco Systems (Cisco) on Sides’ claims for benefits because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. See Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Tr., 50 F.3d 1478, 1483, 1485 (9th Cir. 1995). The district court also properly awarded judgment to UH and Cisco on Sides’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because his requests were vague and he failed to establish any ERISA violation. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974) (per curiam) (“Since an injunctive order prohibits 2 19-15830 conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”). UH’s motion to strike Sides’ excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 29) is granted. Sides’ excerpts of record, filed at Docket Entry Nos. 11 and 20, are stricken. Sides’ motion for oral argument on UH’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 37) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 19-15830
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
