Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor
481 U.S. 58 (1987) Cited 4,529 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that § 1144 preempts state common law claims
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,545 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 1,225 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 739 times 11 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 4,102 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 795 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 320 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 271 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 202 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 361,353 times 960 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 163,831 times 197 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 34,272 times 110 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 26,751 times 175 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 1,647 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 89 timesDiscussing benefits under terminated plans