37 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,360 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,336 times 364 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust
463 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 10,413 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,509 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans
Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
530 U.S. 238 (2000) Cited 540 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the authorization under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 "extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary 'party in interest' to a transaction barred by [29 U.S.C. § 1106]"
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran
536 U.S. 355 (2002) Cited 332 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that savings clause allowed Illinois to enforce law requiring independent medical review of certain denials of medical benefits
Donovan v. Dillingham
688 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 705 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plan exists, whether "pursuant to a writing or not," where "a reasonable person could ascertain the intended benefits, beneficiaries, source of financing, and procedures for receiving benefits"
Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A
388 F.3d 393 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 332 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a hospital had an independent breach of contract action against the insurer because “the dispute here is not over the right to payment, which might be said to depend on the patients' assignments to the Providers, but the amount, or level, of payment, which depends on the terms of the provider agreements” (emphasis in original; quotation marks and alterations omitted)
Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Ariz., Inc.
770 F.3d 1282 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 163 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a valid assignment of rights allows a third party to bring the beneficiary's claim
Amato v. Bernard
618 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 430 times
Holding that, although the statutes do not specify an exhaustion requirement, the legislative history and text of the statutes show that Congress intended to grant the courts authority to apply an exhaustion requirement in ERISA cases
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 344,399 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 155,442 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,236 times 169 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 1002 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 1002 Cited 11,020 times 59 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans

Creative Care, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al

37 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

Holding that the authorization under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 "extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary 'party in interest' to a transaction barred by [29 U.S.C. § 1106]"

Holding that savings clause allowed Illinois to enforce law requiring independent medical review of certain denials of medical benefits

Holding that a plan exists, whether "pursuant to a writing or not," where "a reasonable person could ascertain the intended benefits, beneficiaries, source of financing, and procedures for receiving benefits"

Holding that a valid assignment of rights allows a third party to bring the beneficiary's claim

Holding that, although the statutes do not specify an exhaustion requirement, the legislative history and text of the statutes show that Congress intended to grant the courts authority to apply an exhaustion requirement in ERISA cases

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans