LaRocca v. Borden, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that plaintiffs are “permanently ineligible for relief’ under Section 502(a)(1) when the ERISA plan is no longer functioning
• concluding that, after the district court constructively reinstated employees who had been improperly terminated from an ERISA plan, they were not entitled to further equitable relief under § 502(a)(3) because they could recover benefits due under the plan via § 502(a)(1)(B)
• explaining that if a plaintiff can pursue a claim to recover benefits or achieve constructive reinstatement in a plan pursuant to Section 1132(a)(1)(B), there is an adequate remedy under the plan, which bars a further remedy under Section 1132(a)(3)
• noting, in the context of summary judgment that “when the plaintiff can bring a claim for benefits under [§ 502(a)(1)], . . . she does not have a cause of action under [§ 502(a)(3)].” (citation modified)
• “The plaintiffs here were only ineligible for a remedy pursuant to Section [1132](a)(l)[ (B) ] because they were not members of the Plan when they filed suit”
• “[W]e cannot countenance a plaintiff’s agreeing to settle a case 26 in open court, than subsequently disavowing the settlement when it suits her.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).