§Why CasetextPricing

The Regents of The University of California v. Triple S Steel Holdings Inc et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

24 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor

    481 U.S. 58 (1987)   Cited 4,506 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1144 preempts state common law claims

  4. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux

    481 U.S. 41 (1987)   Cited 3,733 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that civil enforcement scheme codified at § 502 is not to be supplemented by state law remedies

  5. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

    463 U.S. 85 (1983)   Cited 3,543 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

  6. Starr v. Baca

    652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 5,493 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a series of investigative reports documenting systemic deficiencies in a jail put the defendant-supervisor on notice of the risk of the harm that befell the plaintiff

  7. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon

    498 U.S. 133 (1990)   Cited 1,897 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ven if there were no express pre-emption [under ERISA § 514(a)]" of the cause of action in that case, it "would be preempted because it conflict[ed] directly with an ERISA cause of action"

  8. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell

    473 U.S. 134 (1985)   Cited 2,133 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a participant's action filed pursuant to ERISA § 502 must seek remedies that provide a "benefit [to] the plan as a whole"

  9. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara

    307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 2,917 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's allegations that a coroner's knowingly or recklessly false statements led to his arrest and prosecution were sufficient to state a § 1983 claim

  10. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

    514 U.S. 73 (1995)   Cited 693 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a clause reserving the company's right "at any time to amend the plan" meets the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)

  11. 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 357,835 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 20,723 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”

  14. Section 1144 - Other laws

    29 U.S.C. § 1144   Cited 7,037 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Saving clause