Carol P. Marcella v. Capital District Physicians' Health Plan, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that unlike 16 Rule 72(a), “there is no similar [waiver] provision in Rule 17 72(b) for recommendations as to dispositive motions”
• “We first address defendant’s contention that ... the Chamber Plan is itself an ERISA plan. To answer this question, we must []turn to ERISA’s definition of ‘employee benefit plan,’ which states that such a plan must be, as relevant here, ‘established or maintained by an employer.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).