seeks equitable relief under Section 1132(a)(3) based on a different theory than her claim under Section 1132(a)(1)(B)—namely, that defendants affirmatively misled her as to which policy governed her disability cjaim. This theory is not foreclosed by plaintiffs pursuit of other theories under other statutory provisions.” Id. at 778. Defendants attempt to distinguish Sconiers, arguing that the court declined to issue summary judgment on that claim because additional discovery was necessary to support the (a)(3) claim, is unavailing. The court simply noted that more discovery was needed as to the communications between the parties in order to rule on the separate and distinct (a)(3) claim. Id; but see King v. Cigna Corp., C 06-7025 CW, 2007 WL 2288117, *12 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, given the structure of plaintiff’s
holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act recognizing that an a3 claim for equitable relief could survive despite a claim for benefits under a1b but dismissing plaintiffs a3 claim because it was simply one for benefits based solely on claims that fiduciary failed to interpret plan properly failed to adequately investigate the claim failed to properly administer the claim and failed to administer the plan for the benefit of the beneficiaries holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses