Retirement Plan. This argument is equally unavailing. While it is true that a court should not read individual sections of an agreement out of context to achieve a result not originally intended by the parties, Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.1999), there is nothing in the text of the Signal Retirement Plan that suggests that all benefit formulas set forth therein must have a Secured Benefit Account offset. Indeed, under § 4.2(e)(i)(b), a Secured Benefit Account offset unambiguously does not apply to the minimum benefit formulas set forth in § 4.2(c). Defendants’ unsupported assertions regarding the intent of the Plan cannot overcome the clear language of the plan. McGee v. Equicor-Equitable HCA, Corp., 953 F.2d 1192, 1202 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Next, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’
holding that erisa preempts an article 1802 emotional distress claim that relates to an erisa plan holding that words cannot be written into an erisa plan imparting an intent wholly unexpressed when it was executed holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that court will not defer to unexpressed intent or purposes behind an erisa plan holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan