Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must allege, in part, “a cognizable loss to the plan flowing from [the] breach” of fiduciary duty
• affirming dismissal of fiduciary duty claim because complaint’s “conclusory statements” failed to sufficiently allege that defendant was a fiduciary
• reiterating the rule that a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA following a permissible adverse determina- tion must seek to recover losses to the Plan, not a con- tractual counterparty
• law of the case doctrine is “designed to further consistency, to avoid constantly revisiting rulings, and to conserve judicial resources”
• “[T]he case changed . . . and the district court was free to take a new look at it.”
• law of the case doctrine did not apply when the picture of the case changed with the amended cross-complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).