In an ERISA action claiming that defendant benefit plan administrator (Wal-Mart) failed adequately to evaluate the investment options included in the plan, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) the district court erred by conflating the issue of plaintiff’s Article III standing with his potential personal causes of action under ERISA; and 2) the district court erred by ignoring reasonable inferences supported by the facts alleged and drawing inferences in defendants’ favor, faulting plaintiff for failing to plead facts tending to contradict those inferences.
Read Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-3798
Appellate Information
Submitted: September 24, 2009
Filed: November 25, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Murphy
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
