Susan Cripps, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, in an ERISA action, serving a defendant in 19 Massachusetts conferred personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the Southern District of California
• stating that 13 “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, 14 are not established by default”
• explaining that “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default”
• stating that because ERISA 22 provides for nationwide service of process, personal jurisdiction can be obtained by 1 properly serving a defendant anywhere in the United States (citing 29 U.S.C. 2 § 1132(e)(2))
• explaining that claims that are legally insufficient 23 are not established by default
• explaining that 4 claims that are legally insufficient are not established by default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).