Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-erisa
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:24:50+00:00

Document:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Participants in a pension plan filed a petition for writ of certiorari on April 4 in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that review of the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision on whether equitable remedies other than disgorgement might be available on the participants’ breach of fiduciary duty claim is warranted because the decision conflicts with those of other circuits and has the effect of prohibiting a participant’s right to gains earned on a terminated plan’s assets after termination (K. Wendell Lewis, et al., v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., No. 18-1279, U.S. Sup.).
NEW ORLEANS — A decedent’s ex-wife’s $500,000 judgment regarding 401(k) retirement funds was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 16 based upon a timely qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) issued to the ex-wife (Pam Miletello v. R M R Mechanical Inc., et al., No. 18-30942, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11120).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on April 16 partially granted an investment adviser’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims regarding two funds included in a Safeway Inc.’s 401(k) plan because the adviser’s actions regarding those funds occurred outside of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s six-year statute of repose (Maria Karla Terraza v. Safeway Inc., et al., No. 16-3994, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65237).
NEW YORK — A demolition contractor’s claims against a trucking employees’ pension fund are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held April 16 (Gramercy Wrecking and Environmental Contractors v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund Inc., No. 18-2001, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11047).
MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota federal magistrate judge on April 12 denied plaintiffs’ motions to file amended complaints in a two class actions challenging UnitedHealth Group Inc.’s practice of cross-plan offsetting after determining that amending the complaints would cause undue delay and result in prejudice to UnitedHealth (Louis J. Peterson D.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Nos. 14-2101, 15-3064, D. Minn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63373).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 15 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a dispute between a medical provider and United Healthcare Insurance Co. over an anti-assignment provision in a group health benefit plan (W.A. Griffin v. United Healthcare of Georgia Inc. et al., No. 18-1033, U.S. Sup.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a class action lawsuit alleging that American Airlines Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by using an outdated mortality table from 1984 to estimate the average lifespan of pension plan participants must be denied because ERISA requires the use of reasonable actuarial assumptions, the plaintiffs maintain in an April 4 opposition to the motion to dismiss filed in Texas federal court (Olga Martinez Torres, et al. v. American Airlines Inc., et al., No. 18-983, N.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 invited the solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case seeking review of the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts an Arkansas law regulating drug reimbursement rates for pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) (Leslie Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, No. 18-540, U.S. Sup.).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 15 in a one-sentence order denied a motion to stay the mandate filed by UnitedHealth Group Inc. and its subsidiaries following a ruling by the appellate panel that the company’s practice of cross-plan offsetting is not authorized by its plan documents and is in tension with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Louis J. Peterson D.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 17-1744, 8th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 2 request for certiorari, two petitioners argue that a finding by a divided Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of successor liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act conflicts with other circuits and runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “repeated admonition that federal courts are not to create federal common law to rewrite federal statutes” (September Ends Co., et al. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., No. 18-1256, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Participants in the Chevron Employee Savings Investment Plan on April 3 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a writ resolving for all federal circuit appeals courts the proper pleading standard to apply in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary breach actions (Charles E. White, Jr., et al. v. Chevron Corporation, et al., No. 17-1628, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A health insurer did not waive its right to enforce anti-assignment provisions included in a number of its plans by making direct payments to a service provider, a New York federal judge said March 28 in granting the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment (The Medical Society of the State of New York, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., 16-5265, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53097).
NEW YORK — A New York federal magistrate judge on April 1 denied Columbia University trustees’ motion to preclude certain damages claims in a lawsuit alleging that the university breached its duty of prudence to its retirement plan participants and beneficiaries by causing its retirement plans to incur excessive administrative fees and by failing to monitor the plans’ investment options (Chandra Cates, et al. v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, et al., No. 16-06524, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55785).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 vacated and remanded a district court’s judgment in favor of separation pay plan defendants after determining that the plan administrator failed to investigate all of the evidence related to the termination of a former employee before denying the former employee’s request for severance pay benefits (David L. Boysen v. Illinois Tool Works Inc. Separation Pay Plan, et al., No. 17-13145, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9751).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.