Kesselman v. THE RAWLINGS CO., LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing FDCPA claim because the defendants were “exempted from the statutory definition of ‘debt collector’” where they “obtained the right to reimbursement before any debt was in default”
• collecting cases concluding that the allegation that “all conditions precedent including the exhaustion of administrative remedies to maintaining this action have been performed or have occurred or are futile” was insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
• collecting cases and concluding that the allegation that “all conditions precedent including the exhaustion of administrative remedies to maintaining this action have been performed or have occurred or are futile” was insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
• collecting cases and concluding that the allegation that “all conditions precedent including the exhaustion of administrative remedies to maintaining this action have been performed or have occurred or are futile” was insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
• declining to hold that the plaintiff’s lack of awareness of the relevant plan excused her compliance with it, although the “plaintiff argue[d] that she was never told of her right and/or obligation to follow the detailed grievance procedure set forth in her plan.”
• “It is well established that ERISA complaints containing bald assertions that administrative remedies have been exhausted do not withstand a 12(b)(6) motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).