United States ex rel. Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• analyzing sample of claims submitted by defendant where plaintiff has chosen in pleadings, arguments, and opposition papers not to identify the claims at issue
• finding the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims “similarly fail to establish an independent duty under Davila or Montefiore”
• “where a plaintiff brings a state law claim that is in reality an ERISA-claim cloaked in state-law language, ERISA’s preemption power will take effect”
• “Stated differently, the Court considers whether [the plaintiff] has standing to sue under ERISA.”
• unjust enrichment claim does not raise independent legal duty where plaintiff seeks payment for medical services rendered to participants and “any payments here for medical services are derived from rights created under the Plan”
• evidence shows that plaintiff is the type of party that can bring a claim under ERISA where billing statements have a code for assignment, plaintiff does not deny that benefits were assigned, and plaintiff brings claim on behalf of plan participants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).