Legal Opinion

Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program

District Court, N.D. California

Decided September 1, 2010No. C 08-04058 MHPPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARILYN HALL PATEL, District Judge.

In this action, plaintiff Quiller Barnes (“Barnes”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges that defendant AT & T Pension Benefit Plan — Nonbargained Program (“AT & T”) wrongfully denied him pension benefits to which he was entitled. Barnes’ amended complaint asserts three causes of action under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for: (1) failing to provide adequate notice of the reasons for benefit denial, 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1); (2) failing to pay benefits due, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  4. David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  5. Armstrong v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2017
  2. Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
  3. Des Roches v. California Physicians' ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2017
  4. Boyd v. Bank of America Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
  5. Bobbitt v. Milberg, LLPDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API