Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred by requiring that plaintiff “to rule out potential lawful explanations for [the fiduciaries’] conduct”
• holding that factual assertions are accepted as true and inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party
• recognizing that “Rule 8 does not, however, require a plaintiff to plead ‘specific facts’ explaining precisely how the defendant’s conduct was unlawful.”
• holding that, although the defendants “could have chosen funds with higher fees for various reasons,” “Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to plead facts tending to rebut all possible lawful explanations for a defendant’s conduct”
• holding that a plaintiff had standing to seek relief for the period before his participation in the plan because the same alleged breaches nevertheless caused injury to his personal account
• concluding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that failure to disclose certain information would mislead a reasonable participant in the process of making investment decisions under the Plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).