Legal Opinion
Clark v. Feder Semo & Bard, P.C.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 17, 2007No. Civil Action 07-0470(JDB)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN D. BATES, District Judge.
Plaintiff Denise Clark brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In her complaint, she alleges that she was improperly denied almost 50% of the value of her retirement benefits in violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback protection for accrued benefits, ERISA’s disclosure requirements, and fi- dueiary duties imposed by ERISA. Currently before the Court is defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Upon careful consideration of the motion, the parties’ memoranda, the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Clark v. Feder Semo & Bard, P.C.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Wright v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Miller v. Mellon Long Term Disability PlanDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Clark v. Feder, Semo & Bard, P.C.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Zalduondo v. Aetna Life InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.