Allstate Insurance Company v. The 65 Security Plan, Lindemuth, Michael

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Sec. 514(a) preemption defense will not justify removal unless claim falls within the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement provision, Sec. 502
• holding that complete preemption r \affirmative evidence of a congressional intent to permit removal despite the plain exclusive reliance on state law\
• holding that the complete-preemption exception did not apply in a situation where an insurance company plaintiff sought contribution from an ERISA plan because Sec. 502 of ERISA does not provide an express cause of action vindicating the interest that the suit sought to protect and enforce
• finding no removal jurisdiction ba complete preemption where first prong was not met and where the court found no \evi of an intent on the part of Congress to permit removal of the type of state-law cla made by [the plaintiff] . . . in cases where the plaintiff exclusively relies on st law\
• rejects insurer's claim that its right to subrogation constitutes a suit under § 1132(a)(1)(B)
• “The doctrine of complete pre-emption applies only ... when the enforcement provisions of a federal statute create a federal cause of action vindicating the same interest that the plaintiffs cause of action seeks to vindicate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).