Ihde v. Generational Equity, LLC, 1:17-cv-00847

Plaintiff Laura Ihde, an ERISA Plan participant, alleges she became disabled and received short‑ and long‑term disability (LTD) benefits through the Plan until payments stopped on November 20, 2014.
United of Omaha (United) denied continued LTD benefits and upheld that denial on administrative appeal; Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies and sued under ERISA.
Plaintiff sued the Plan, Plan sponsor/administrator Generational Equity, and United, asserting: (I) wrongful withholding of LTD benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (II) breach of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109, 1132(a)(2); and (III) failure to produce plan documents under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(A), 1132(c)(1).
Generational Equity and the Plan moved to dismiss Claims I and II, arguing they had no discretionary authority to pay/deny benefits because United retained all discretion.
While the dismissal motion was pending, Plaintiff and Generational Equity/the Plan settled all claims between them; Plaintiff notified the court she would not oppose the motion.
The magistrate judge recommended the partial motion to dismiss be denied as moot because settlement eliminated the live controversy between Plaintiff and Generational Equity/the Plan; claims against United remain pending.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claims I and II against Generational Equity and the Plan survive dismissal	Ihde alleged wrongful denial of LTD benefits and fiduciary breaches by the Plan/sponsor	Generational Equity/Plan argued they lack discretion to decide claims (United retained discretion), so claims I and II should be dismissed	Denied as moot: parties settled, removing live controversy between Ihde and Generational Equity/the Plan

In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580 (10th Cir. 1995) (procedural requirements for objections to magistrate judge recommendations)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (objections must give court notice of the basis for review)
Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 1999) (failure to object can waive de novo review)
International Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Coal Refining Sys., Inc., 52 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 1995) (waiver by failing to object to portions of magistrate order)
Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342 (10th Cir. 1992) (failure to file objections waives right to appeal magistrate judge’s ruling)
Morales‑Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule exceptions where interests of justice require review)