10, 1994, exactly ten (10) days later, the Court finds that defendant complied with the statutory notice provisions of COBRA. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Alternatively, the Court finds that defendant would still be entitled to summary judgment even if the qualifying event occurred on June 30, 1994. As noted above, plaintiff does not dispute that his COBRA notice of right to continue coverage was mailed on August 10,1994, and that he elected not to continue coverage under defendant’s plan. When a plaintiff decides not to continue coverage under COBRA, the defendant cannot be held liable for a failure to provide plaintiff with timely notice of his right to continue coverage. Mercado Garcia v. Ponce Federal Bank, 779 F.Supp. 620, 631 (D.P.R.1991) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 979 F.2d 890 (1st Cir.1992). This rule
holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it holding that a plaintiffs decision not to continue coverage under cobra precluded a violation of the notice provisions regardless of the date the beneficiary received his cobra notice recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that notice was insufficient because it was slid under the tenants door instead of being posted regardless of the fact that the tenant actually received the notice holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner