Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an ERISA action may be brought against an insurance company with authority to grant or deny benefits, but not against an employer with no control over benefits decisions
• noting that factual question regarding whether plaintiff was an “employee” was intertwined with the merits of his ERISA claim, so federal courts had jurisdiction
• holding before discovery into substantive issues can be allowed, plaintiff must establish at least a “color-able” due process violation
• noting that factual question regarding whether plaintiff was an “employee” was intertwined with the merits of his ERISA claim, so federal courts had jurisdiction
• finding that defendant was not a proper party for plaintiff’s denial of benefits claim and affirming dismissal of claim when defendant did not make a decision regarding plaintiff’s benefits
• noting that because claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel are “addressed in the first instance in the district court,” they “requir[e] no deference to any administrator’s action or decision”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).