Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 8/27/2012

Janese v. Fay

Citations

  • 692 F.3d 221
  • 54 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1369
  • 2012 WL 3642315
  • 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18160

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that the district court \properly denied the motion to amend following its denial of the motion for [relief from the judgment]\
  • concluding that the district court “properly denied the motion to amend following its denial of the motion for [relief from the judgment]”
  • eliminating Siskind’s distinction between single-employer and multi-employer pension plans and holding that no employers act in a fiduciary capacity when modifying, adopting, or amending plans
  • “[A]mendment of a complaint becomes significantly more difficult when a plaintiff waits … until after judgment has been entered.”
  • resolution of “issue of fact” as to knowledge of fraud “was not proper at the pleading stage”
  • “[A]mendment of a complaint becomes significantly more difficult when a plaintiff waits, as the Plaintiffs in this case did, until after judgment has been entered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Newman, Winter, Pooler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Janese v. Fay

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.