Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART THE MOTION TO DISMISS; ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; AND ALLOWING ALL PARTIES TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, District Judge.
Linda Kanter, Courtroom Deputy.
This is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants — the Motion Picture Industry (“MPI”) Health Plan and its Board of Directors (“the Plan”) — have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health PlanDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Compu-Link Corp. v. PHH Mortgage Corp.District Court, E.D. California · 2022
- The Solaria Corporation v. GCL System Integration Technology Co., Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2022
- The Solaria Corporation v. GCL System Integration Technology Co., Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Young v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2021