Inman v. Klockner-Pentaplast of America, 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 an individual’s professional reputation is considered an employment interest falling outside the scope of Va. Code § 18.2-499
• finding that a plan was not covered by ERISA where “although it is possible that Plaintiff could see income from his stock investment after the time he retired, that fact alone does not render the [relevant plan] an ERISA plan”
• finding unjust enrichment claim unavailable because any benefits the plaintiff alleged to have conferred on the defendants were governed by the express agreement
• “This Court will endeavor to follow the Fourth Circuit’s post-Swierkiewicz holdings. As such, plaintiff[ ] must sufficiently allege facts to allow the Court to infer that all elements of each of his causes of action exist.”
• “[TF]he Court cannot merely accept Plaintiff's conclusion that an ERISA plan exists and must examine the complaint closely to determine whether the. allegations relating to the stock investment program actually allow the Court to infer than an ERISA plan exists.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).