No. 18-1271
Charles E. White, Jr., et al. v. Chevron Corporation, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: breach-of-fiduciary-duty circuit-split decision-making-process eighth-circuit employee-retirement-income-security-act-erisa erisa-fiduciary-duties erisa-fiduciary-duty fiduciary-breach ninth-circuit participant-claims pleading-standards secretary-of-labor twombly-iqbal
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA Privacy
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-05-23
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Sufficiency of pleading breach of ERISA fiduciary duties
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED This is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for breach of fiduciary duties. In order to prove such a breach, a plaintiff must provide that the fiduciaries failed to follow an appropriate process in making their decision. But participants in ERISA plans are not privy to the fiduciaries’ decision-making process. In pleading a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, is it sufficient for a plaintiff to allege a deficient decision-making process indirectly through inferences from the facts known to her?
Docket Entries
2019-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-09
Supplemental brief of petitioners Charles E. White, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-05-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-05-03
Waiver of right of respondents Chevron Corporation, et al. to respond filed.
2019-04-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Charles E. White, Jr., et al.
Michael Armin Wolff — Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, Petitioner
Michael Armin Wolff — Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, Petitioner
Chevron Corporation, et al.
Jonathan D. Hacker — O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Respondent
Jonathan D. Hacker — O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Respondent