Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing the simple percentage- of-earnings calculation in Miller and declining to find clear repudiation because beneficiaries “would have needed to apply complex law to complex facts.”
• noting the issue required 3 17 “apply[ing] complex law to complex facts” and “it makes no sense to ask the participants to 18 || navigate the complexity of ERISA’s anti-backloading provision immediately upon receipt of their 19 first benefits payment”
• \repudiation ... [that] is clear and made known to the plan beneficiary\
• “Because employee benefit plans are con- tracts, courts in this jurisdiction have borrowed the statute of limitations provision for breach of contract actions in the District of Columbia.”
• specifically finding reasonable this Court’s decision to limit the subclass in this way
• “[A] court must dismiss a properly-brought case if it is subsequently rendered moot.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).