Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor
481 U.S. 58 (1987) Cited 4,441 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that § 1144 preempts state common law claims
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,510 times 18 Legal AnalysesHolding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne
482 U.S. 1 (1987) Cited 1,219 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding that a Maine statute requiring employers to provide a one-time severance payment to plant employees in the event of plant closure did not establish, or require employers to maintain, an ERISA plan because "[t]he requirement of a one-time, lump-sum payment triggered by a single event requires no administrative scheme whatsoever to meet the employer's obligation"
California Labor Stds. Enf. v. Dillingham Constr
519 U.S. 316 (1997) Cited 723 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that ERISA did not pre-empt a California statute that incentivized, but did not require, plans to follow certain standards for apprenticeship programs
Emrich v. Touche Ross Co.
846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 4,037 timesHolding proceedings and determinations of the courts are a matter of public record suitable for judicial notice
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.
506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 717 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that when a complaint "is unclear and does not specify 'a total amount in controversy,' the proper burden of proof . . . is proof by a preponderance of the evidence"
Toumajian v. Frailey
135 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 313 timesHolding that because state law claims were not completely preempted by ERISA, federal court lacked removal jurisdiction
Harris v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 270 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that because the plaintiffs are not in one of the enumerated categories of parties entitled to seek relief under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, their state claims are not completely preempted by ERISA
Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.
340 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 197 timesReviewing for abuse of discretion award of fees and costs associated with removal or remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
Blau v. Del Monte Corp.
748 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1984) Cited 313 timesHolding that although “there is no express statutory requirement to notify participants in a timely fashion of plan cancellation, such a requirement is implicit in the structure and purpose of ERISA, and is more vital than the ordinary technical reporting and disclosure requirements”
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 344,767 times 920 Legal AnalysesGranting 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 155,637 times 193 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,017 times 109 Legal AnalysesHolding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,251 times 169 Legal AnalysesHolding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 1102 - Establishment of plan
29 U.S.C. § 1102 Cited 1,619 times 12 Legal AnalysesGranting administrator, as “named fiduciary,” the “authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan”
Section 1441 - Benefits under certain terminated plans
29 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 87 timesDiscussing benefits under terminated plans