Kendall v. Employees Retirement Plan of Avon Products

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an ERISA plan participant’s lost opportunity to receive higher benefits did not constitute an injury-in-fact
• narrowing the broad language of Horvath and noting plaintiffs “did have to show that they were generally harmed by the deprivation of a specific right.”
• affirming the district court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing
• rejecting proffered Article III injury of “right to a plan that complies with ERISA”
• affirming dismissal for lack of standing for plaintiff’s failure to allege “an identifiable and quantifiable injury” that was “specific to her”
• “claims [that] are effectively claims for money damages [are] outside the scope of § 1132(a)(3)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).