Legal Opinion
Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided September 10, 2015No. Case No. 14-cv-13556PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 17)
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Kimberly Cox and Heather Claus initiated this putative class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., alleging that Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) breached its fiduciary duty by *893charging Plaintiffs’ respective ERISA plans “hidden” fees. BCBSM filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt.17), claiming that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. The issues have been fully briefed, and a…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MichiganDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2016
- Coutu v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2019
- Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. TobergteDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2020