Wurtz v. Rawlings Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that ERISA did not completely preempt plaintiffs’ claims and noting that, “in the ab- sence of an alternative basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to reach the merits of the ordinary ex- press preemption defense”
• noting that “com- plete preemption can be the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, but express preemption cannot”
• “Allowing plaintiffs’ state-law claims under section 5-335 to proceed will not disturb ERISA’s goal of providing national uniformity.”
• “Allowing 4 plaintiffs’ state‐law claims under section 5‐335 to proceed will not disturb ERISAʹs goal 5 of providing national uniformity.”
• reaching the merits of the express preemption defense when the claims in question are not completely preempted but there is “another basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction under [the Class Action Fairness Act]”
• “The Second Circuit has declined to reach the issue of who bears the burden with regard to CAFA exceptions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).