FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CANDACE S. WALTERS, No. 11-16762
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00150-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT LONG TERM
DISABILITY PLAN; ODYSSEY
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LONG
TERM DISABILITY PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Candace S. Walters appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse
the district court’s order and remand.
The complaint alleged that Walters submitted a long-term disability claim to
Odyssey Healthcare Management Long Term Disability Plan (“Odyssey” or
“Plan”). It alleged that Odyssey “refused to process” her claim and that “[a]s a
matter of ERISA law and regulations, [she] is deemed to have fully exhausted all
administrative remedies required under the Plan.”
Odyssey moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Walters “fail[ed] to allege facts sufficient to show
that she exhausted the Plan’s internal appeal process before filing suit.” The
district court granted Odyssey’s motion without prejudice, giving Walters leave to
file an amended complaint. Instead, Walters filed an interlocutory appeal in this
court. Because Walters failed to submit an amended complaint, the district judge
later filed an order dismissing her case with prejudice.
Walters’s complaint alleged that Odyssey refused to process her claim – i.e.,
that Odyssey failed to make any decision on her claim. At this stage in the
proceedings, this statement of fact is sufficient to support Walters’s legal assertion
2
that she should be deemed to have exhausted her administrative remedies.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s ruling dismissing Walters’s case and
remand to the district court to permit Odyssey to file an answer to Walters’s
complaint.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3