AMARA v. CIGNA CORP., 08-3388 (2nd Cir. 10-6-2009)

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.

No. 08-3388 (L); 08-3460 (XAP).United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 6, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGEDAND DECREED that the judgment of the district court beAFFIRMED.

Page 2

APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFFS: STEPHEN R. BRUCE, ALLISON C. PIENTA, Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices, Washington, D.C.; THOMAS G. MOUKAWSHER, Moukawsher Walsh, LLC, Hartford, Connecticut.

APPEARING FOR DEFENDANTS: JOSEPH J. COSTELLO, JEREMY P. BLUMENFELD, JAMIE M. KOHEN, Morgan, Lewis, Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge,AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, CircuitJudges.

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

Page 3

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. See Amara v. CignaCorp., 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 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Page 1