§Why CasetextPricing

Bach et al v. Amedisys, Inc. et al

REPLY in Support of 161 Motion To Dismiss The Consolidated ERISA Complaint

34 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,684 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,676 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Varity Corp. v. Howe

    516 U.S. 489 (1996)   Cited 2,428 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ERISA fiduciaries may have duties to disclose information about plan prospects that they have no duty, or even power, to change

  4. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores

    588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,969 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding fiduciary had duty to disclose "complete and accurate material information about the Plan funds and the process by which they were selected"

  5. Benchmark Electronics v. J.M. Huber Corp.

    343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 855 times
    Holding that the district court plainly erred in treating the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment without allowing discovery, noting that the plaintiff was “deprived of a full and fair opportunity to defend against summary judgment”

  6. Sprague v. General Motors Corp.

    133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,027 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because "[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the terms of the plan itself"

  7. Milwaukee v. Illinois

    451 U.S. 304 (1981)   Cited 455 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendments to the Clean Water Act displaced the nuisance claim recognized in Milwaukee I

  8. Pugh v. Tribune

    521 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 541 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Stoneridge precluded primary liability for an insider at Tribune

  9. Ferrer v. Chevron Corp.

    484 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 509 times
    Affirming Rule 12(b) dismissal of an ERISA claim for lack of a causal relationship between the alleged breach of fiduciary duty and damages

  10. Yinguang Chem. Ind. v. Potter

    607 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 335 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding significant payment, among other factors, did not support inference that the defendant did not intend to pay

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,394 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,748 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  13. Section 1144 - Other laws

    29 U.S.C. § 1144   Cited 7,049 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Saving clause

  14. Section 78m - Periodical and other reports

    15 U.S.C. § 78m   Cited 1,226 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing Commission to adopt disclosure requirements for certain repurchases of securities by issuer

  15. Section 78l - Registration requirements for securities

    15 U.S.C. § 78l   Cited 247 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Detailing how “ security may be registered on a national securities exchange”