In an ERISA case, judgment granting defendant-Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (MetLife) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against Sharp Electronics (Sharp) is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not act inconsistently with the law of the case doctrine as its first ruling was not binding, and in any event the case had changed with Sharp’s amended cross-complaint against MetLife; 2) ERISA does not impose the type of fiduciary duties alleged and only imposes liability for Plan losses, and not for attorney fees and other costs incurred by Sharp in defending an employee’s suit; and 3) the district court did not err when it dismissed Sharp’s claim for indemnification. District court’s ruling on the merits of state law claims is vacated and remanded so that the dismissal is without prejudice.
Read Sharp Elec. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 08-2959
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.Argued April 14, 2009Decided August 18, 2009
Judges
Before Kanne, Rovner, and Wood, Circuit Judges Opinion by Wood, Circuit Judge.
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
