Search

The article examines the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the case 'Santomennol v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.' in which the court denied the plaintiff's putative class action against defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The article reports the decision of the U.S. District Court for Central District of California in case "Escalante v. California Physicians Service" in which court partially granted the plaintiff's putative class action seeking clarification of rights under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The article looks at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's case Daniel F. et al. v. Blue Shield of California et al. in which plaintiffs filed lawsuits against defendants alleging for denying coverage violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the case of John B. Davidson v. Henkel Corporation. It informs that the District Judge Gershwin A. Drain granted the retirement plan participant's motions for class certification, appointment of class counsel, and appointment as class representative in class action against employer recovery of benefits and estoppels under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The article focuses on the judicial decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in the case of Teletia R. Taylor v. Oak Forest Health and Rehabilitation LLC. It informs that the District Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted defendant's motions for sanctions and for summary judgment in an action brought by the retirement plan participant against her employer and insurer to obtain health insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The article discusses the judicial decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of Stephen Colaco v. Asic Advantage Simplified Pension Plan. It informs that the participants in the simplified employee pension (SEP) plan brought civil action against faulty promises of employers regarding contributions to SEP under Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It mentions that Justice Paul S. Grewal granted motions to compel and denied request for sanctions.

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of U.S. Dept. of Treasury v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. PBGC). It informs that Justice Emmet G. Sullivan denied the Treasury Department's motions to quash subpoena in a civil action against PBGC regarding termination of participants in pension plan under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The article discusses the lawsuit Laborers' Dist. Council Pension v. Geofreeze Inc. filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. Topics discussed include the third-party complaint by plaintiffs, claims for enforcing the Funds' rights to the employer contribution violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and complaint of bankruptcy filed by the defendant. It further informs about the judgment of granting the third-party complaint.

The article discusses the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia case Fanning v. C & L Service Corp., in which multi-employer employee pension benefit plan filed lawsuit against the employer C & L Service. It focuses on the allegations charged against the employer which include its failure to pay proper amount of contributions under the collective bargaining agreements and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It mentions the entitlement of the pension plan to default judgment.

The article discusses the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland case Dennis Walter Bonds, Sr. et al. v. Marriott International Inc. et al, in which participants in their former employer's deferred stock bonus retirement plan brought action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It discusses the District Court judge Roger W. Titus's denial of employers' summary judgment motion and deferred ruling on class certification.

The article discusses the U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey case Lipstein v. Unitedhealth Group et al., in which participants brought putative class action under employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Topics discussed include participants' claim for thousands of health insurance plans, secondary insurance coverage payments to insureds that were enrolled in or eligible for Medicare and participants' move to certify class, and administrator's move for summary judgment.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's ruling in the 2013 case Boland v. Yoccabel Construction Co. Inc. which deals with several fiduciaries of retirement funds governed by the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) who sued an employer after it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen labor union. Motions for default judgment and legal standards of review are examined.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut's ruling in the 2013 case Haddock v. Nationwide Financial Services Inc. which deals with a class action lawsuit which was filed by the trustees of employer-sponsored profit-sharing retirement plans against a financial services provider for alleged violations of fiduciary duties and the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). American civil procedure rules and amended complaints are examined.

The article focuses on the court case J.T. et al. v. Regence Blueshield et al. that was filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at Seattle. It states that minor beneficiaries brought action against insurers under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging that insurers have failed to provide medically necessary neuro-developmental therapy, as mandated by Washington's Mental Health Parity Act. The court denied motions for not meeting requirements.

The article focuses on the court case John Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging Inc. and its Severance Plan, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Eastern District of Wisconsin. It discusses the case showing the class action brought by the employers who had been allegedly forced to retire against the employer discrimination in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and failure to pay severance benefits in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The article discusses the Maryland District Court case In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc.: Erisa Litigation. Topics mentioned include beneficiaries' suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, their motion to compel discovery of electronic evidence, and the period of time to be covered by the discovery process.

The article discusses the court case IBEW-NECA Board v. Bank of New York Mellon, presented before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York in which trustees of union's Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of the U.S. sued banks of the U.S. for class action. It also reveals that the District Court Judge Richard M. Berman announced that the proposed did not satisfy various requirements and class action is not a good method for adjudicating action.

The article discusses the court case Natale v. Country Ford Ltd. presented in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York in which plaintiff sued defendants for paying withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of the U.S. It also informs that the District Court Judge held that defendant's son was personal representative of defendant under New York law and eligible for substitution.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia court case National Shopmen Pension Fund, et al. v. Robert S. Russell regarding the recovery of payments. The plaintiff defined benefit plan National Shopmen Pension Fund had filed the case in accordance with the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court after analysis had rule out in favor of the plaintiff demand.

The article discusses the court case in which plaintiffs investors filed a putative class action against defendant Beacon Associates LLC for violating the Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA), and the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). It mentions that defendant invested its assets in Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC (BLMIS) which led to loss of investors. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' motion.

The article discusses the court case Fanning v. Hotel Management Advisors-Troy, LLC, wherein the plaintiff Michael R. Fanning filed an action against the defendant Troy LLC for violating the U.S. Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to contribute to fund and even seeks monetary award for liquidated damages and interest on unpaid contributions. The U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, has granted the motion of plaintiff.

The article discusses a court case of Outten v. Wilmington Trust Corp. wherein plan participants filed two putative class actions against the plan administrator based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for the breach its fiduciary duties and meeting the best interests of beneficiaries and plan participants. The U.S. district court ordered accordingly and consolidation of actions was also warranted.

The article discusses a court case of In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative and ERISA wherein the investors filed action against financial institutions based on the conspiracy of the defendants with abetted issuer in a Ponzi scheme and misrepresentation of issuer's financial situation. The defendants filed for motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed motion for leave and file amended pleading. The U.S. district court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs' motion.

The article discusses a court case of Cottillion v. United Refining Co. wherein pension plan participants filed class actions for the violation of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act by the employer, retirement committee and pension plans. The defendants tried to reduce the effective amount benefits and so the participants filed motions to compel for document production. The U.S. district court granted the motion in part and denied in part.

The article presents a court case on Bauer v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. wherein employee union and retired employee filed class action based on the violation of the U.S. Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 due to elimination of health plan options and increase in drugs costs. The plaintiffs filed an amended motion for the class certification which was granted by the U.S. district court.

The article discusses a court case Chesemore v. Alliance Holdings, Inc. regarding the violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by the parties who transferred the employee stock ownership plan and trust of the employees of the company. The employees alleged the parties of preparing a complex transaction and filed the motion for class certification. The federal court of the U.S. granted the motion filed by the plaintiff.

The article discusses a court case Durham v. IDA Group Ben. Trust wherein the action was filed against the trust due to the denial of a coverage claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a participant in the benefit trust of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act group. The motion to compel discovery was filed by the plaintiff. The federal court of the U.S. granted the motion filed by the plaintiff.

The article discusses a court case of Bacon v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. wherein participants of retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act filed action against board members of the corporation due to fraudulent scheme. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed and so they filed for class certification. The district court of the U.S. denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and the pending motions related to class certification.

The article discusses a court case of Harvey v. Standard Ins. Co. wherein participants of long-term disability plan under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act filed action against the insurer for the wrongful denial of benefits. The plaintiffs filed motions to compel discovery the relevant documents. The district court of the U.S. granted plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered the deadline for the discovery.

The article discusses a court case of Howard v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co. wherein the beneficiary of the employee welfare benefit plan filed action against the administrator of claims and others for the violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on the discontinuation of long-term disability benefits. The defendants filed for protective order and sanctions. The U.S. district court granted defendant's motion in part and denied in part.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Neil v. Zell in which action against the defendants was brought by the plaintiffs under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The allegations on defendants were made regarding the leveraged buyouts under the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) which breached the fiduciary duty of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the Court.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Ulyanenko v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. in which action against the defendants was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of benefits from administrator under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiff moved to strike the answer of administrator and enter judgment by default. The plaintiff's motion was denied by the Court without prejudice.

The article presents the U.S. District Court case Colozzi v. St. Joseph's Hosp. Health Center in which action against the defendants was brought by the plaintiff for the violations of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and New York Labor Law. Defendants moved to dismiss class members and the plaintiffs moved for subclasses certification. The motions were granted in part and denied in part by the Court.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Otte v. Life Ins. Co. of North America in which putative class action was filed by the beneficiary of life insurance policy against the defendants. The allegations regarding the violations of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 were made on the defendants and the plaintiff moved for class certification. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted in part by the Court.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff Marianne Meyers on behalf of herself and all the employees similarly situated filed a claim against her employer for alleged violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). It is mentioned that the defendants moved for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs moved for the certification of NYLL and ERISA claims. It includes judgemnt given by district court judge David N. Hurd.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiffs Dawn Hamelin, Rakiesha Griffin, and Julie Flint filed a putative class or collective active action against their employers on the grounds of alleged violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). It is mentioned that the employers claimed for partial summary judgment and the plaintiffs claimed for class certification. It further discusses the judgment.

The article discusses a court case of Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained wherein pension benefit plan participants filed action based on the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act for the failure to pay the benefit dues. Earlier the U.S. district court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The participants again filed motions for modifying the order on class certification and also filed a second amendment. The court granted the motions filed by the participants.

The article discusses a court case of McKay v. Tharaldson wherein employee stock option program (ESOP) participants filed class action against the employer, director and president of the organization for breach of fiduciary duties defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and for wasting and dissipating corporate assets. The U.S. district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The article discusses the court case Fitzpatrick v. American Intern. Group, Inc. wherein the case was filed by the board of directors against the organisation due to the violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of the U.S. and also breach of contract and fiduciary duty. The motion to compel was filed by the plaintiff for the production of documents protecting the attorney-client privilege. The district court of the U.S. denied the motion filed by the plaintiff.

The article discusses the court case Haddock v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. wherein the putative class action was brought against the defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of the U.S. for the violation of the fiduciary duties thought the collection of the revenue sharing payments from the mutual funds. The motion to certify was filed by the plaintiff, which was denied by the district court of Connecticut.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Mulligan v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., in which plaintiff moved for discovery requests and to compel responses for certain interrogatories. It was held by the Court that in the disability benefits case of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act, evidence regarding the alleged conflict of interest would be subject to limited discovery. The Plaintiff's motion was granted in part and denied in part by the court.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Geiger v. Pfizer, Inc. in which action against the defendants was brought by the plan participants under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiff asked for long term disability benefits from defendants and has moved the motion to conduct limited discovery. The Court granted the defendant's motion and denied in part and granted in part the plaintiff's motion.

The article presents the U.S. District Court case Harris v. Koenig in which action against plan fiduciaries under the U.S. Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of approximately 30,000 plan's participants. Information on the filing of motion for class certification by the plaintiffs is provided. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion.

The article discusses Harris v. Koenig, the U.S. District Court case, in which action against fiduciaries was brought by the plan participants under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 which seeks to recoup losses that have resulted from the alleged purchase of employer's stock at higher prices. The defendants moved for protective order. The court granted the defendant's motion whereas the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was granted in part and denied in part.

The article discusses a court case of Gomez v. Rossi Concrete, Inc. wherein construction workers filed class action based on several issues including inter alia, non payment of minimum wages under the California law and breach of fiduciary duties under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiffs filed for class certification and the U.S. district court granted plaintiff's motion in part and denied in part.

The article discusses a court case of Barnes v. AT & T pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained wherein pension benefit plan participants filed action based on Employee Retirement Income Security Act due to the defendant's failure in payment of benefit dues. Earlier the U.S. district court granted participant's motions to amend the complaints. The participants filed motion for class certification for violating anti-cutback provisions which was granted by the district court.

The article discusses a court case of George v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. wherein participants of pension plan filed class action against the administrators, sponsors and fiduciaries of the plan due to the breach of fiduciary duties based under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiff filed motions for class certification which was granted by the district court of the U.S.

The article discusses a court case of Thompson v. Hartford Life And Acc. Ins. Co. wherein insured with long-term disability benefits filed lawsuit against insurer due to termination of the benefits and the violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiff filed for reinstatement of unpaid benefits and policy. The insurer in turn filed for motions to strike some portions of the complaint which was denied by the district court of the U.S.

The article discusses a court case of Morien v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. wherein former employee filed Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action on the former employer for severance agreement promising dental, medical and life insurance benefit. The employer filed motion for protective order, discovery and deposition of witness. The U.S. district court denied all the motions of the defendant.

The article discusses a court case of Board of Trustees of the Aftra v. JPMorgan Chase wherein retirement fund fiduciaries brought class actions against the bank based on the losses due to collapse of structured investment vehicle. It focuses on the applicable laws for class certification, breach of fiduciary duty and the violation of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It informs the granting of class certification by the U.S. district court.