Langley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where the plaintiff’s complaint had alleged “claims sufficiently related to ERISA to invoke federal-question jurisdiction”
• holding that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where the plaintiff's complaint had alleged “claims sufficiently related to ERISA to invoke federal-question jurisdiction”
• holding the appellant’s claim was waived where she “failed to discuss or cite to the district court’s analysis in any detail” with no real “effort at developed argumentation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that a contract is illusory when the promisor retains an unlimited right to determine the nature or extent of its performance; such an agreement may not be enforced or damages sought for its breach
• finding that “merely labeling a particular benefit an ‘ERISA plan’” is non-dispositive since “an employer could convert an otherwise exempt benefit into one covered under ERISA,” and could thus “avoid state tort liability under ERISA-preemption doctrine.”
• finding that “normal compensation paid to an employee as a result of a disability and from the employer’s general assets does not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan, but instead is considered a payroll practice” not subject to ERISA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).