Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

7 Citing briefs

  1. Cynthia Gosper v. Pacific Life Insurance Co. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Claims One, Two, Four and Five of Plaintiff's Complaint

    Filed September 6, 2016

    Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 24, 28- 33, 42-43; Gobeille, 136 S. Ct. at 943. Because the Common Law Claims necessarily relate to the Plan and affect plan administration, ERISA § 514 expressly preempts them.

  2. Charles Creamer, et al v. Starwood Hotels And Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed March 13, 2017

    Thus, plaintiffs must show more than just nfavorable results. See id.; see also Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936, 943 (2016) (“ERISA does not guarantee substantive benefits. The statute, instead, seeks to make the benefits promised by an employer more secure by mandating certain oversight and other standard procedures.”)

  3. Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Healey

    REPLY

    Filed January 6, 2017

    at 25), there exists no further exception for ultra vires activity beyond the Ex parte Young doctrine, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 277-78 (1986).13 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the NYOAG’s opening brief, this Court should dismiss all of the Amended Complaint’s claims against the NYOAG. 12 Compare Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936, 945 (2016) (reporting requirement preempted), with FTC v. Ken Roberts Co., 276 F.3d 583, 593 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (investigative authority not preempted). 13 The failure of Exxon’s substantive claims also dooms the claim of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which does “not itself provide any substantive rights.”

  4. Michael Grossman et al v. Directors Guild of America Inc et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed September 23, 2016

    Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 46; Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 97-99 (1983) (Congress used words “relate to” in broad sense). Recently, in Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ERISA Section 514(a) is the broadest preemption Case 5:16-cv-01840-GW-SP Document 13-1 Filed 09/23/16 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TRUSTEES OF THE DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA-PRODUCER HEALTH PLAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) clause ever enacted by Congress. There, the Supreme Court held that ERISA preempted a Vermont state law that required certain entities to report payments relating to health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for compilation in a database.

  5. Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed August 8, 2016

    Those issuing or marketing variable and fixed indexed annuities thus face the near-impossible task of having to predict the hindsight judgments of courts and juries across Case 3:16-cv-01476-M Document 62 Filed 08/08/16 Page 35 of 45 PageID 4629 29 the nation. The uncertain, but potentially staggering, liability renders the BICE impractical, AR39754-39755, 40230, 40593-40594, 40620, and conflicts with the “the central design of ERISA, which is to provide a single uniform national scheme … without interference from laws of the several States,” Gobeille v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936, 947 (2016). Second, the BICE is entirely unworkable for proprietary products.

  6. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed July 18, 2016

    Those issuing or marketing variable and fixed indexed annuities thus face the near-impossible task of having to predict the hindsight judgments of courts and juries across the nation. The uncertain, but potentially staggering, liability renders the BICE impractical, App. 233-234, 605, 659-660, 686, and conflicts with the “the central design of ERISA, which is to Case 3:16-cv-01476-M Document 49 Filed 07/18/16 Page 35 of 45 PageID 1388 29 provide a single uniform national scheme … without interference from laws of the several States,” Gobeille v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936, 947 (2016). Second, the BICE is entirely unworkable for proprietary products.

  7. Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Healey

    RESPONSE

    Filed December 23, 2016

    .......................................23 Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 167 Filed 12/23/16 Page 3 of 35 PageID 5599 iii FEC v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................19 FTC v. Am. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924) .................................................................................................................21 Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................16 Fund for La.’s Future v. La. Bd. of Ethics, No. 14-0368, 2014 WL 1514234 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2014) .....................................................14 Galloway v. State of La., 817 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................25 Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016) ...............................................................................................................24 Google v. Hood, 822 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................13 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) ...........................................................................................20 In re Grand Jury of S. Dist. of Ala., 508 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Ala. 1980).........................................................................................22 Gruber Hurst Johansen & Hail, LLP v. Hackard & Holt, No. 3:07-CV-1410-G, 2008 WL 137970 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2008) .......................................14 Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................7, 11 Gulf Coast Int’l v. The Research Corp.