Daft v. Advest, 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 “existence of an ERISA plan [was] not a jurisdictional prerequisite,” but “an element of a plaintiff’s claim”
• holding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s definition of a covered plan is not jurisdictional
• concluding that a district court reviews de novo “a plan administrator's determination of questions of law, such as whether a plan meets the statutory definition of a top-hat plan.”
• observing that “the defendant‐employer typically advocates for the top‐hat status of an ERISA plan in order to avoid statutory liability, and therefore the defendant‐employer bears the burden of proof on this issue in the district court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).