Carmen Peralta v. Hispanic Business, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that federal district 17 courts have original jurisdiction “either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal 18 question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331”
• explaining that federal district 11 courts have original jurisdiction “either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal 12 question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331”
• distinguishing McDowell in a case involving whether an ERISA plan administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to timely provide notification of plan cancellation because “interpretation of ERISA law lies at the heart of the dispute”
• collecting cases where no ERISA preemption was found including where there “was no ERISA plan,” “plaintiff never became eligible to receive benefits under the plan,” and the plaintiff “was not a participant in employer’s ERISA health care plan.”
• implicitly characterizing plaintiff as a participant when evaluating availability of remedy, even though plaintiff was not covered at the time she brought suit
• fiduciary breaches duty by failing to notify participants of termination notwithstanding technical compliance with ERISA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).