Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Arnold and Sheriff Graves, alleging violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father while responding to a 911 call that the father was threatening to commit suicide. Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under the father's accidental death policy. The district court granted Arnold and Grave's motions for summary judgment and granted ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment. The court held that Arnold did not violate the father's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered the father's home without a warrant because he had an objectively reasonable belief that the father would imminently seriously injure himself, and the district court did not err in granting Arnold's motion for summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim because Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity; Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate the father's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Arnold on the assault and battery claims, the false imprisonment claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the district court correctly granted Graves's motion for summary judgment; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ReliaStar where the record was replete with factual evidence that ReliaStar relied on in determining that the father's death was not accidental, demonstrating that ReliaStar could have reached its determination without resorting to the conflict of interest at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rice, et al. v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of RBC who participated in a wealth accumulation plan (WAP), filed suit alleging that forfeitures of their plan amounted to violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court reversed the district court's grant of RBC's motion for summary judgment, concluding that, under the plain language of the statute and the interpretations expressed in Murphy v. Inexco Oil Co. and Boos v. AT&T, WAP is an "employee pension benefit plan" under section 1002(2)(A)(ii) and nothing in section 2510.3-2(c) proves otherwise.View "Tolbert, et al. v. RBC Capital Markets Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming denial of medical insurance, Medicare premiums, and deductible reimbursements. The district court held that the pension plan benefit plan was a "governmental plan" exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court employed the wrong procedural mechanism for analyzing this case. Because a federal district court has jurisdiction to decide whether or not a plan is an ERISA plan as claimed by plaintiffs, the court concluded that, under Supreme Court precedent and ACS Recovery Services, Inc. v. Griffin, the proper procedural vehicle to raise the question of whether a purported ERISA plan is a "governmental plan" is either Rule 12(b)(6) or, if factual information outside the pleadings is needed, Rule 56. View "Smith, et al. v. Regional Transit Auth., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a large Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., provider, sought a declaration that defendants, three independent, non-ERISA insurance providers, were bound by the terms of the ERISA plan and primarily liable for injuries sustained by individuals covered by the parties. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the Central States have failed to state a claim for equitable relief as required by Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA; there was no gap in ERISA's enforcement scheme requiring a federal common law claim for unjust enrichment; and Count I does not adequately state a claim for equitable relief under ERISA 502. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Central States, SE and SW Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Health Special Risk, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that the bonds that they invested in were an unsuitable investment for the Plans' funds and that defendant made multiple oral misrepresentations to plaintiffs in violation of his fiduciary duties. The district court ruled that there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether defendant was an ERISA fiduciary, but nonetheless granted summary judgment because defendant provided plaintiffs with written disclosures. The court concluded that defendant did not qualify as a fiduciary under ERISA subsection 1002(21)(A)(i) because he did not exercise discretionary authority or control over the investment at issue; subsection 1002(21)(A)(ii) because he did not receive a fee from the Plans in connection with the investment; and section 1002(21)(A)(iii) because it was inapplicable in this instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tiblier, et al. v. Dlabal, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Lowe's challenging the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan. The court reversed the district court's grant of relief from the denial of benefits and award of benefits because the court found that the Plan Administrator did not abuse its discretion where the Plan Administrator was not operating under a conflict of interest and was vested with the power to interpret the terms of the Plan. View "Porter v. Lowe's, et al." on Justia Law

Unum denied plaintiff's claims of long-term disability and sought more than $1 million in reimbursements for benefits paid. Unum denial was based on emails it had received from plaintiff's former companion indicating that plaintiff was engaged in activities that were inconsistent with her asserted disability. The district court found that there was substantial evidence to support Unum's denial of benefits, but, nonetheless, held that the denial was procedurally unreasonable because Unum did not fulfill its duty to "consider the source" of the emails. The court concluded that, in evaluating whether a plan administrator wrongfully denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., it has never imposed a duty to investigate the source of the evidence. The court held that the burden was on the claimant to discredit evidence relied on by the plan administrator. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding that Unum did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiff benefits. View "Truitt v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employer seeking deferred compensation payments. The district court held that plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements in their Employment Agreement contracts with the employer constituted a plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements did not necessitate an ongoing administrative scheme, there was no ERISA plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiffs' state law claims were not preempted by ERISA. View "Cantrell, et al. v. Briggs & Veselka Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty to plan participants. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Counts I and IV of the amended complaint which alleged that Idearc Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing plan participants to buy and hold Idearc stock when it was no longer prudent to do so where the amended complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the "presumption of prudence" the court adopted in Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy Inc. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for inaccurate disclosures and nondisclosures (Count II) where plaintiff alleged no specific circumstance or specific injury mandating the Idearc Defendants disclose non-public information to plan participants and no general duty to disclose non-public information existed under ERISA or under the court's precedents. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims. View "Kopp v. Klein, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed suit against Conoco for breach of the Offer Letter and breach of its obligations under a severance plan (the Plan). The court concluded that plaintiff waived any challenge to the Trustee's application of the common law presumption of integration or Texas's parol evidence rule; plaintiff's arguments regarding his change in title were unpersuasive; plaintiff's "at will" employment argument relied on outdated and out-of-context Texas authority and was unpersuasive; the waiver was not invalid and unenforceable on account of fraud in the inducement; plaintiff ratified an alleged fraud, thereby preserving the validity and enforceability of the waiver regardless by submitting a claim to Conoco Human Resources but then continuing to work at Conoco; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), civil enforcement provision "completely preempts" plaintiff's state law claims against Conoco and the district court did not err by denying plaintiff's first motion for remand; the district court correctly denied plaintiff's renewed motion for remand; plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorneys' fees; and plaintiff waived his claim for breach of the Offer Letter, pertaining to a substantial reduction in his post-merger job position and responsibilities, for failure to plead with specificity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff. View "Clayton v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al" on Justia Law