CARSON v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11404 (9^th Cir. June 3, 1999) (unpublished)-Before: FERGUSON, O'SCANNLAIN and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff sued for disability benefits while Standard, the Plan Administrator,  was conducting a lengthy review of his claim. Shortly after Plaintiff sued, Defendant determined that Plaintiff was disabled. Standard also determined that Plaintiff had income from other sources which it should have used to reduce the disability benefit. The Court remanded the case back to the plan administrator for it to determined the reduction. The Court's remand order required the plan administrator to complete the review in 120 days. The district court said it would decide the issue of attorneys' fees after the review. The District Court also required the parties to mediate the case through JAMS before it would deem the administrative remedies were deemed exhausted. The district court used language in its order suggesting that any further litigation would be considered a new lawsuit.

Plaintiff appealed. 

Court concluded that the remand order was not a final judgment appealable to this court. A final judgment must fully adjudicate the issues on the merits and clearly evidence the judge's intent that it be the court's final act in the matter. National Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court never addressed the parties' claims or defenses and never entered a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Neither party even sought a final judgment. 

The Court also held that appellate review was not warranted under any exceptions to finality. An order remanding a case to a plan administrator might be appealable where: (1) the order conclusively resolves a separable legal issue; (2) the order forces the agency to apply a potentially erroneous rule; and (3) review as a practical matter would be foreclosed. Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 160 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 1998).

Ninth circuit stated its desire that district courts make their intention to retain jurisdiction clear. Also, the Court expressed its disapproval of the district court's directing what should happen at the administrative review level. Court was particularly unhappy that the district court required that the parties submit to mediation before a private "rent-a-judge" at their own expense as a condition to returning to court.