Elena David v. J. Alphin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that federal courts have “subject matter jurisdiction over ERISA claims only where the [litigants] have both statutory and constitutional standing”
• holding that a statutory violation alone is not enough
• rejecting trust-law argument and concluding that defined-benefit-plan participants lacked Article III standing to sue based solely on deprivation of statutory right
• rejecting assertion that alleged deprivation of statutory right to have plan operated in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary requirements constituted injury in fact necessary for constitutional standing
• finding no abuse of discretion where district court dis- missed already amended complaint with prejudice
• explaining that “all relief must go to the Plan itself’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).