15-3921 Solnin v. Sun Life & Health Ins. Co., et al.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ‘SUMMARY ORDER’). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

13 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of January, two thousand seventeen.

18 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 19 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 20 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., 21 Circuit Judges.

24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Janet Solnin, 27 Plaintiff-Appellee, 29 -v.- 15-3921 Sun Life and Health Insurance Company, Genworth Life and Health Insurance Company, GE Group Life Assurance Company, Phoenix Life Insurance Company, 36 Defendants-Appellants.

39 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

2 FOR APPELLANT: JOSHUA BACHRACH, Wilson, Elser, 3 Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP; 4 Philadelphia, PA. FOR APPELLEE: SCOTT M. RIEMER (Paul M. Kampfer, 7 on the brief), Riemer & Associates, 8 LLC; New York, NY.

10 FOR AMICUS: MEGAN HANSEN (Eirik Cheverud, 11 Navin Jani, M. Patricia Smith, G.

12 William Scott, Elizabeth Hopkins 13 on the brief) for Thomas E. Perez, 14 United States Secretary of Labor.

16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hurley, J.).

18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

21 Defendant Sun Life & Health Insurance Company1 appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Janet Solnin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hurley, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. We find no error in the judgment of the district court.

29 Accordingly, and finding no merit in appellant’s arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

31 FOR THE COURT: 32 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

1 The list of appellants named in the caption reflects a corporate acquisition and name changes. Sun Life is the present name of the only actual appellant.