§Why CasetextPricing

Kenney v. State Street Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

17 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,081 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,181 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  3. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

    406 U.S. 128 (1972)   Cited 1,627 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

  4. Barbour v. Dynamics Research Corp.

    63 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 1995)   Cited 386 times
    Holding that the employer's determination that the employee's doctor did not provide a valid certification of disability was permissible; the employer could require that employee to return to work under Section 510; and that "[e]ven if [the employer] was mistaken in its evaluation of [the employee's] disability, as long as that determination was in good faith and formed the basis of the decision it is permissible under section 510"

  5. Rogers v. Fair

    902 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 243 times
    Reviewing denial of summary judgment when coupled with denial of qualified immunity

  6. Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp.

    64 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " fiduciary has an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiary's circumstance, even when a beneficiary has not specifically asked for the information"

  7. Farr v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.

    151 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that, even though defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform plaintiffs about the potential tax consequences of the lump sum distributions of their pension benefits, § 1132 did not authorize recovery of compensatory damages for the tax benefits losses

  8. Mauser v. Raytheon Co. Pension Plan

    239 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2001)   Cited 56 times
    Noting but declining to reach the issue

  9. In re Computer Sciences Corp. Erisa Litigation

    635 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Dismissing monitoring claim because upon finding that underlying prudence claim failed

  10. In re First American Corp.

    258 F.R.D. 610 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that certain named ERISA plan participants have standing to serve as class representatives under U.S. Const Art. III

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,426 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 1104 - Fiduciary duties

    29 U.S.C. § 1104   Cited 4,824 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Specifying duties of a "fiduciary . . . with respect to a plan"