Dahl v. Charles F. Dahl, M.D., P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that immunity extends to “acts . . . within the core duties of a [guardian ad litem] in assisting the court—that is, performing a function closely associated with the judicial process” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• reviewing de novo district court’s determination that it had subject-matter jurisdiction and could therefore enter default judgment
• “[R]ecent Supreme Court decisions compel the conclusion that the existence of a 15 benefit plan subject to ERISA is not a jurisdictional requirement but an element of a 16 claim under ERISA.”
• “We are persuaded by the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit that recent Supreme Court decisions compel the conclusion that the existence of a benefit plan subject to ERISA is not a jurisdictional requirement but an element of a claim under ERISA.”
• reviewing denial of supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion
• “[A] defendant may invoke the defense of good faith reliance on a court order only if he can demonstrate (1) that he had a subjective good faith belief that he acted legally pursuant to a court order; and (2) that this belief was reasonable.” (alteration in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).