David P. Coldesina, D.D.S., P.C. v. Estate of Simper

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 distinction between the two clauses “evidences Congress’s intent to treat control over assets differently than control over management or administration”
• holding that defendants, one of whom would receive contributions from the plan, deposit them into his business account, and write checks on behalf of the plan for the amount of the contribution, had practical control over plan assets
• noting that when complete preemption exists, the state claim becomes a federal claim and serves as a basis for removal jurisdiction
• emphasizing that “[d]iscretion is conspicuously omitted from the fiduciary function of controlling plan assets”
• stating that “a claim only falls within ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme when it is based solely on legal duties created by ERISA or the plan terms, rather than some other independent source.”
• explaining that the class of \[c]laims that do not affect the relations among the principal ERISA entities\--and thus escape preemption--\[n]ecessarily\ includes claims that affect relations between only one ERISA entity and some outside/non-ERISA entity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).