Kanika Bledsoe v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
| Kanika Bledsoe |
| Colgate-Palmolive Welfare Benefit Plan and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company |
| 5:2013cv02270 |
| December 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Margaret M. Morrow |
| Sheri Pym |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
58
JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte, Jr, as follows:1) Plaintiff is awarded back benefits in the amount of $90,075.24. Thisamount represents disability benefits for the period November 18, 2012, to February18, 2015. The benefit calculation is predic ated on the benefit amount whichMetLife was paying Plaintiff at the time her benefits were terminated, which tookinto account an offset for Social Security Disability Benefits in the amount of$2,173.00 per month. 2) Plaintiff is reinstated to th e Plan and his claim is remanded to the Plan for consideration of additional benefits under applicable Plan criteria. 3) Plaintiff is permitted to make a Motion for Attorneys Fees and forinterest on the unpaid benefits. In order to give the parties s ufficient time to meet and confer with regard to the amount of interest on retroactive benefits, andattorneys' fees owed, if any are owed, the Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of entry of this Judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
